Mohammed Comics Number 4, With Special Guest Star Jesus Christ
You know, I can’t help but notice that criticism of the recent behavior of militant Islamic fundamentalists has in some quarters taken on the character of a “hooray for our side” pep rally.
To serve as a counterweight for that, or maybe because I never could stand pep rallies, I offer up Mohammed Comics #4, with very special Guest Star Jesus Christ:
Note of April 15, 2008: I have voluntarily removed the image of this Mohammed Comic — not because of threats, but because of the recent lack of them. As of late, there have not been riots regarding Mohammed Comics or death threats directed at me or any other public creator of Mohammed Comics. As a gesture in recognition of this return to some state of non-violence on the issue, I am taking my drawn image of Mohammed down. After all, the point of the comic was not to anger Muslims, but to pointedly engage in free speech at a time when free speech on the subject of Islam was threatened. Should the threat arise again, you may expect to see my Mohammed Comics appear again as well.
And we are still not hacked.
Jim, Peregrin Wood ,jclifford and others like you. You are all pigs, suns of pigs who lost there moral values long ago in your ancestors chain. You would enjoy your mothers and sisters go prostitute because you carry the pigs gene in you. You will never understand what these people are angry about. It is beyond what your minds can conceive.
Ah, Omar, if I may quote the one that your religion calls “the most blameless of the prophets, Jesus of Nazareth: “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” On a more personal note, I’m not perfect, either. If you threaten me or my people, you had better be aware of the consequences to be paid. I don’t subscribe to the idea of “turning the other cheek”.
I had to laugh at your patheic attempt at moral equivalence of christianity with Islamofascism. What’s next: the Jewish annihilation of the Canaanites to show Judaism’s moral equvalence with Islamofascism? You anti-Semites…
Here it is, midnight in California, and it took me until now to frame this question:If How do you expect me or anyone else in the western world to “respect” you, when all you can do is insult and threaten us? I don’t know about you, Omar, but where I come from, all you succeed in doing when you do that, is run the risk of having someone knock your teeth down your throat. You certainly don’t garner any respect. Quite the contrary, you invite contempt. Maybe that behavior works in your part of the world, but here we have a saying: “Don’t let your alligator mouth override your puppydog ass.”
Good comic today!
Mike, I notice that you’ve now threatened Omar, too.
How’s about we all pledge to yell at each other but not get physical about it?
And hey, Omar sweetie, last time I checked they don’t have prostitutes in pig world. So which is it? Are we pigs, or are our sisters and mothers prostitutes? Can’t be both. Please be consistent.
bomb in officce
Considering that you live in Teheran, “labomba,” I seriously doubt you’ve put a bomb in my office.
Try shipping it overnight, and it will get to my workplace by Monday at 10 am.
Oh, I haven’t given you my office address. Hmmm. I know I’ve put it somewhere here. Let’s see… no, can’t find it. I’ll get back to you on that. Just hold the bomb for now, ‘kay?
Christianity is a hegemonic fascist religion of the world whose leaders are mostly pasty white folk (with a few self-hating people of color as leaders too) and with all their late-capitalist power they can easily endure any mocking. However, Islam is the religion of mostly people of color (and a few enlightened white folk) who were victimized for centuries by lily white christians and hence, like affirmative action, a special tolerance and sensitivity should be carved out for them (and for adherents to all non-christian religions, including Judaism)and for Muhammed, praise be his name. christians who are people of color are dupes of christianity: hence, mocking the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. as farting, taking a dump, or mentioning his serial adultery or plagiarizing his Ph.D dissertation would be racist, insensitive, and intolerant and should be prosecuted as felonious hate speech. If you insult Dr. King OR MOSES I’ll see that you’re prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
To #10:
On the one hand, you complain about people mocking the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr..
On the other hand, you use “pasty white folk” as a derogatory term.
King never would have done that. You’re mocking him as well, by refusing to take his message seriously.
Aaaaaaand clearly, #10, you don’t have any idea what the current extent of the law is, since that extent doesn’t cover insulting historical or religious figures.
CHRISTIANSSUCK, get a life, you are so out of touch with reality. Ever been to South Korea? Full of christians, more christian than the US. Africa is very christian. Know your facts or shut the hell up.
Jimmy, you wrote: “you don’t have any idea what the current extent of the law is, since that extent doesn’t cover insulting historical or religious figures.”
I’ll have those who insult Muhammed or Moses or the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. prosecuted under Justice Murphy’s fighting words exception to the free speech clause in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942).
Peregrin, “Pasty white folk” is hardly an insult to those christians with all the power who have
victimized people of color and Jews for centuries. You sound like a straight white male christian yourself.
Will #13, you wrote: “Ever been to South Korea? Full of christians, more christian than the US. Africa is very christian.” These people of color were victimized and brainwashed by the christian missionaries.
This is all about POWER. People of color don’t have power in the U.S., and that’s why hate speech against them should be prosecuted. Since the christians are in power, hate speech against them should be encouraged in order to subvert their hegemony.
CHRISTIANSSUCK, you’re really after POWER, I don’t think hate speech is going to do much for you strategically.
Hate speech won’t get you power. All hate speech does is make you FEEL powerful for a while, but it diminishes your credibility. Lose credibility, and you lose power. Think about the white people you know of who engage in hate speech against blacks. What do people think of them? Not much.
If you want to have POWER in America today, get a focus group together and study the words that appeal to people, then write them into speeches. Get a naive, handsome man who doesn’t follow the news to read it for you: convince him that what he’s reading is true, and he’ll be able to convince others. Make a bunch of dirty back-room deals with the companies selling gasoline, alchohol, junk food, cigarettes, and mind-rotting entertainment to Americans while polluting our air and water, busting unions and cutting health care. In exchange for campaign contributions, let companies write the legislation for their own industries.
There’s you path to POWER, if that’s what you want. That’s how the powerful do it. Hell, don’t sell out to the man, BE the man. Sell your soul to the devil and live it up, if that’s all you want.
But if you actually care about doing the right thing, let me suggest you lay off the hate speech and make alliances with people who really care too, regardless of their skin color.
CHRISTIANSSUCK,
you wrote: –Peregrin, “Pasty white folk†is hardly an insult to those christians with all the power who have victimized people of color and Jews for centuries. You sound like a straight white male christian yourself.–
So, what you mean to say is that when you insult people who are in power because of the color of their skin, you’re not insulting them? What? You’re not making any sense.
You’ve got me pegged all wrong, by the way. I’m not a Christian at all - and if I am white and straight, do you think I chose that?
You want to go on calling me pasty, insulting me because of how my skin looks? Go ahead. I don’t think you’ll be winning any points from the other readers here - just exposing yourself as a bigot.
If a white man called you pasty, would you think he was being racist? Probably not.
But if a black man says it, suddenly it’s racism!
Isn’t that a double standard, Peregrin?
Way to set up the straw man argument, Malcom!
Either way, I’d think it was insulting.
Damn, doesn’t it just bug you when I don’t follow your expectations?
I didn’t say “insulting,” I said “racist.” There’s a difference, isn’t there?
After looking at the original cartoons behind the riots around the world, I am more puzzled about the behavior of the muslim world than before.
The cartoons of controversy depict the behavior of the followers of Mohammed imposed on his image. For example, radical muslims plant bombs on their persons and blow people up. One cartoon shows a bomb in Mohammed’s turban. What is the problem? If their behavior does not humiliate him, why do the cartoons? Perhaps that is why they are so angry. The cartoons show that the reputation of Mohammed is damaged by their actions, and they are embarrassed about it.
This would be a good time to exhort muslim friends to repudiate radical behavior.
It seems strange to me that the only Muslims we ever hear about are the ones in the streets, burning our flag and blowing themselves up. If there are so many Muslims that don’t feel that way, then why aren’t they the ones standing up to thier Imams in their mosques, and denouncing the violent behavior? Why aren’t they punishing their own when they incite violence during prayer sessions, and in Muslim schools? Why aren’t they out there in the streets, doing peaceful protests against the ones that want the image of Islam to be one of revenge and endless violence? These “peaceful” Muslims don’t seem to have a voice at all - which just makes them look like they don’t object to the violent behavior all that much. They’re blowing up buildings and threatening to kill people because someone in Denmark published a cartoon. Why aren’t all of these people that are holding signs in protest advocating violent retribution being arrested? Nobody broke any laws in publishing the cartoons. But the last time I checked, blowing buildings up and inciting crowds to cut off people’s heads was still illegal.
Ralph #16, you don’t understand my argument. I encourage everyone to mock straight white male christians through Jesus since they have all the power and are the source of the evil in the world. However, Muslims and Jews have no power and have been marginalized and oppressed by the christians for centuries: Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust, etc. By including Muhammed Jim shows that he is an anti-Semite and a fascist.
#18, if a black man calls you n*****r (see, I can’t even type the word…), is he a racist? If a white man calls you a n****r, is he a racist?
“CHRISTIANSSUCK”
Okay, that was weird.
What I said was: “CHRISTIANSSUCK” - not THERE’S a lucid thought. So, Moslem good, Christian bad. Black man good, white man bad. I’m beginning to follow your logic now. Might want to put a little more time and thought into it, though.
Cartoons over the mohammed? - Whats the problem?
1 person does this, then the muslim world acts like idiots, children and more importantly criminals.
Islam has made an ass of its self again, how are we suppose to take this religion seriously, as the West when they do this.
From what I have seen over 9/11, 7/7 and now the cartoons - is it time Islam was banned
Freedom of expression is a term some people cannot wrap their minds around. They are fine with free speech, just so long as it is not offensive, insulting, and sanitized for their protection.
Religion has done good things for those who believe in it, but it has been responsible for a lot of the bad in the world. Not just the Muslims, but the Christians and Jews have all had a history of doing inhumane things in the name of God. Trying to censor speech is the least of their sins.
Protests are fine. It is a freedom of expression.
A normal, sane person would have voiced their opinions against what they are protesting, perhaps start a boycott or stage a counter-move against the commercial interests of the one being protested.
An irrational person would physically attack or make threats of violence towards people who had nothing to do with the object of protest.
News coverage is only into the ratings, therefore will only show the violent protests staged by extreme Muslim groups. It would not be very interesting to show a peaceful protest, would it? Therefore all the images we get in the West would confirm the mistaken belief that all Muslims are terrorist who do not get free speech.
It is akin to the false belief that all white people in the US are guilty of keeping African slaves because a minor percentage of very rich white folks had them and trade them like cattle. The fact is there were more whites that did not own slaves than did and there were whites who were slaves.
People with all skin colors can be racist and intolerant, just as they can also be accepting and understanding.
People from all religious beliefs, or disbeliefs can be ignorant and hateful, just as they can also be just and wise.
The cartoons were offensive to a group of people, but freedom of speech should never be mandated due to the risk of offense. If you accept free speech, you need to accept the right to defend what you say as well as the consequences of what you have done.
Every action=reaction.
“People with all skin colors can be racist and intolerant, just as they can also be accepting and understanding.”
No: white people (except for those of the Jewish faith) have hegemonic power, and therefore are the racist, homophobic, sexist ones.
People of color have no power, and therefore they cannot be racist.
christians (except for those christians of color and Jewish converts who have been brainwashed) have hegemonic power, and therefore are to blame for the intolerant and insensitive drawings of Muhammed.
Muslims (and those of the Jewish faith) have no power among the Abrahamic religions, and therefore they cannot be intolerant or insensitive.
You know, CS, your point is semantic. I define “racist” this way, you define “racist” that way, we therefore have a disagreement about who satisfies the condition “racist.” I’m less interested in the word “racist” than in figuring out who satisfies the conditions that people use as criteria to inform the word.
So, to follow that point, please define “hegemonic,” “racist” and “power.” Your claims (which are actually the recycled claims of undergraduate humanities classrooms from the past two decades) don’t make sense without an understanding of what you mean by the words you use.
Jimmy:
For “hegemonic,” read Gramsci; for “racist,” read Malcolm; for “power,” read Foucault.
I’ll get worried about the reaction to the insensitive drawings when christians stop bombing abortion clinics and killing physicians and raping children.
Right, right, right. I thought so. Yes, I too have read Michel Foucault, Malcolm X and Antonio Gramsci.
I want to know how YOU use the words, or at least if YOU know how Michel Foucault, Malcolm X and Antonio Gramsci define the words.
I say this because a) your contentions aren’t really your contentions; they’re the recycled and processed cheese food undergraduate humanities versions of presentations of contentions made by others, b) your contentions betray either a lack of understanding of the terms you use or an intentional willingness to misuse them.
So define the terms, using your own words.
Not that I wholly agree with those individuals’ definitions of power, racism and hegemony anyway.
Hmmmm. Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior (or inferior) to others.
I’d agree with that definition. I believe that at least one person here has acted out in a way that sort of demonstrates that belief. . .
CS, your generalizations lack substance.
Racism is just good old fashioned class distinction.
When the good old British empire solidified the rules of class distinction in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Those who believed themselves to be chosen by God to rule over the rest of us set up the whole system which said that they (the God Kings) were at the top of the social/economic/government pyramid, and are automatically superior to the rest of us who make up that great infernal mass called The people/Hoi Poloi/peasants/peons/serfs.
Social climbers, religeous zealots and the new industrial rich, aspired to a closeness to the God Kings that placed them above the mass and closer to greatness. This decreed that everyone beneath them is inferior and therefore to be despised.
This concept moves down by degrees until those at the bottom of the pyramid have no one to look down on, so they separate themselves from each other by missguided theories of superiority based on skin color eye shape ethnic background or language. The God Kings and their sycophantic followers foment these misguided theories to prevent us all from seeing how stupid it all is.
If this won’t fit into your world view today, then you have not been paying attention
There is a difference between acknowledging that racism exists and calling everything that exists racism. Racism is not just good old fashioned class distinction; it’s different and it’s important to notice that difference. Besides, you’re saying that racism and classism are the same thing, but that’s different that what was alleged here by someone, which is that making distinctions between religions is the same as racism. Class, race, and religion are distinctive things, and efforts by people to say they are all the same and that discussions about them are out of bounds are, in my opinion, simplistic attempts to limit discussion.
I have two pigs, their names are mohammed and moses…..
The muslims and the Jews are the destroyers of the world
Anonymous people who accuse entire ethnicities of being the destroyers of the world don’t have the highest credibility.
Um, anonymous, if Muslims and Jews are the destroyers of the world, then how come the world isn’t destroyed?
Think about that one for a while. You don’t have to come up with an answer right away.
Some more Mohammed cartoons, this time in an Italian magazine close to Opus Dei. And yes, the editor ended up apologizing.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/590
Excellent, love it! Neutered!
I have to agree with Sandra and add this note…where has the “sense of humor” gone in this world…and how do we get it back?
Um, “Sandra” is a spambot, not a real person.
When you agree with a spambot, what comes next? Sodomy! Kissing in the street! Figs! Aaaaah!
The spambot is neutered.