Update: SHIFT has sent North by Northwestern a Letter to the Editor concerning this topic. Read it here.
The Secular Humanists for Inquiry and Free Thought (SHIFT) met by the Rock Sunday night, chalking stick figures resembling Muhammad across campus. SHIFT leadership said that the goal of the event was to promote freedom of expression.
“We wanted to express the idea that there is no policy against talking about the prophet Muhammad,” Weinberg sophomore and SHIFT president Cassandra Byrne said. “It’s become a cultural taboo because of fear. We’re trying to dispel that taboo.”
The chalking came after the creators of South Park were forced to censor their 200th episode in which the Prophet Muhammad was depicted in a bear outfit alongside other major religious figures including a cocaine-snorting Buddha. The website of the Muslim extremist group Revolution Muslim warned the creators they would “probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh” if the show aired. Van Gogh was murdered in 2004 after making a film that criticized Muslim women.
“It underscores the ridiculousness of what has happened with the whole thing,” Weinberg junior and SHIFT member Michael Sklar said.
The chalking occurred at 10 p.m., according to a statement sent over the SHIFT listserv. Initial talks about the protest stirred controversy within the group, leading to an ongoing debate about whether carry out the chalking or not. After discussions at the meeting Sunday afternoon, it seemed the group was prime for their first official protest as a group.
Secular humanist groups across the country have reacted in similar ways. Members of the Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers at the University of Illinois started the trend when they drew 150 stick figures of Muhammad in support of free speech. Soon after, Atheists, Humanists Agnostics members at the University of Wisconsin-Madison responded with similar drawings across campus. According to the blog Political Cartel, the AHA faced resistance from the Muslim Student Association, which called the cartoon criticism “illegal” and a “slap in the face.”
Byrne said she hopes Northwestern’s Muslim-cultural Student Association does not misinterpret SHIFT’s motivations behind the drawings.
“It’s not directed to Muslims who are offended,” she said. “It’s to everyone else for thinking this is so offensive.”
For Sklar, the drawings were more about making a statement and not letting free speech “be subordinated.”
“If it’s truly about idolatry instead of criticism, then I am more inclined to sympathize with Muslims if they get pissed off,” he said.
Leadership from McSA said they wished that SHIFT had called for a campus conversation on the issue.
“We are just as strong supporters of free speech as anyone else,” said Noreen Nasir, Co-President of McSA.
“There could have been better ways to approach this,” Nasir said. “Had they approached us directly, we could have had some open dialogue. I mean, communication is the key in these situations.”
McSA’s other co-president, Omar Bin Khalid, shared similar opinions.
“With freedom of expression comes certain responsibilities,” Bin Khalid said. “We are a part of a diverse community and we need to be considerate of the feelings of others.”
“We understand the point they are trying to make, but we want to make it clear that it is very hurtful to Muslims,” Bin Khalid said.
Though the path along the rock emptied late Sunday night, most people walked by the drawings unnoticed. Drawings were placed in front of Kresge, the Rock, the Arch and near Annenberg Hall.
“I feel this was just drawn to get a offended reaction by people,” Communication sophomore Max Moline said. “You don’t need to draw Muhammad to express your freedom of expression. It’s just pointlessly offensive. That said, I’m not personally offended.”
“This is something that would inspire that kind of talk. That’s what I hope it would be,” Weinberg freshman Rachel Geistfeld said. “Hopefully it’s out of ‘Hey, a lot of people would find this offensive. Why would they find this offensive?’ as opposed to ‘This is offensive. Look what I can do and you could do nothing about it.’”
Still, there is an issue of whether a non-Muslim who wants to make a statement about something must be subjected to Muslim rules when that something is Muhammad. I suppose that's what the talk Sunday is about.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
By that logic Muslims have no reason to get angry at South Park. If they do engage in depicting the Prophet (peace be upon him), Muslims can just change the channel. They aren't being forced to watch it. But SHIFT's actions were different. SHIFT chalked figures on the ground, on public property that everyone has a right to use, including Muslims. By doing that they are forcing Muslims to walk over the images on the ground when, forcing them to do something that goes against their beliefs. You could argue that Muslims can just walk around it who's forcing them to walk OVER it. But that's not the point. The point is that SHIFT's actions curtail Muslims' freedom by restricting where they can walk and where they can't. As Northwestern students they have the right to walk wherever they want on campus but SHIFT's actions prevent them from doing so. That is what's wrong with this situation.
Ironic, isn't it that in arguing for freedom of expression you're imposing your own views on someone else and thereby curtailing their religious liberty?ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
1. I was just thinking about this: supposing that the offense taken to this concerns the prohibition of idolatry, my question is: who is idol-worshiping these depictions? Muslims seem to generally be against this, and SHIFT certainly doesn't worship these drawings. Why does it matter? It's forbidden, sure, but I think that this sorta stuff may actually be irrelevant to the actual spirit of the anti-idolatry laws of Islam.
2. May I assume that Muslims don't accept these drawings as valid? If they are invalid depictions, why does it matter if they walk over them? They're not walking over Muhammad, because the stick figure is not valid. I really think you are overreaching with this attempt to "flip" the freedom issue around on SHIFT.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
The questions you pose are valid. But they could have been easily answered, and your assumptions clarified, in an open discussion. If these are questions you (and those who share your views/concerns) have yet to attain an adequate understanding of, then there seems to be something missing. How can one protest that which he/she does not understand? Using free speech and open dialogue to attain an understanding of Islam and its basic tenets, and its position on idolatry would have served us all well.
Instead of being "inclined to think" that Muslims take offense to the depiction of Muhammad because of the reasons you assumed, one could have sought out those answers beforehand. That way said person or student organization would be sure about what is being protested and why, instead of figuring that out afterwards and offending your fellow colleagues along the way.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
Still, I have done some research today, and I am more and more convinced that this is utterly irrelevant as far as Islam is concerned. You want to stop idolatry, but whose idolatry? Find me a Northwestern student who has decided to worship the stick figures, then we can talk. I think this is more of a "this is rule because it, uhhhh, well it is" type deal that Muslims are just supposed to take without question, certainly without questioning whether SHIFT's portrayal, or South Park's, actually inspires idol-worship. Groups like SHIFT are inherently opposed to such rules. (with the possible exception of the atheist dogma, but that's another debate)
If your taking offense has more to do with "insulting" Muhammad, I don't sympathize all that much. South Park has shown Jesus Christ defecating on the American flag. Comedy Central, the same network that censored South Park, is developing a cartoon called "JC" about guess who? And it will basically make fun of Christianity, and I'm sure many of the super-offended people on the Daily comments will freely laugh at that cartoon. But again, I hope this factor is secondary to the idol-worship one.
Anyway, this is my basic view, but I hope that SHIFT and McSA can come together to discuss this. I am rather sorry that SHIFT did this before talking to McSA, but I hope that we did not sever ties with them completely by doing this. Based on the quotes from their co-presidents, they are being rather reasonable about this, which is laudable under the circumstances (especially compared with the reactions at other campuses where this has happened)ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
(sarcasm)ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
Most of the students at Northwestern aren't Muslim - fact.
Also a fact: People are disgusted at SHIFT because what they did was DISRESPECTFUL, not because they hate free speech. I'm a Catholic, and I don't pretend to know nearly enough about Islam to make any kind of contribution to the discussion over why it is against Muslim law to depict Muhammad, but as a PERSON(irrespective of religion, race, ethnicity, gender, WHATEVER) I'm absolutely DISGUSTED that SHIFT could do something so disrespectful and then try to veil it by saying "uhhh free speech free speech."
Screw SHIFT. There's some free speech for you, and might I suggest that it would be a better use of SHIFT members' time to learn to appreciate diversity than to draw on the sidewalk like petulant toddlers.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
Now, to analysis: I'm sure that the person who came up with this day thought she was so alternative and so cool. Fact is, when people say, "Public speech is not meant towards a certain group", that is total crap. Public speech is public because EVERYONE gets to see it, even people who will be offended. Anyone who thinks that their actions in public forums are only going to be seen by their intended audience is crazy. South Park knows this, yet chooses to do what they do anyway. But people who did this towards "everyone else who thought it was offensive" clearly don't understand the concept of a public forum. To further rebuke this side, when do we need to depict Mohammed? Never, really, unless we're intentionally inflaming the Muslim community. Yeah, we get it, we have free speech. But just because I have a Ferrari doesn't mean I go 120 miles an hour down EVERY highway because I can. It is unfair to assume that I know what the framers of our Constitution meant, but I'm fairly sure that they didn't envision free speech to exist so that we can deliberately inflame others in our community. Shame on you.
HOWEVER, on the flipside of this issue, it is unfair for groups of people (religious groups in particular) to demand censorship based on things that may or may not be offensive. To be fair, it is rather difficult to imagine a scenario where depicting Mohammed is necessary (outside of intentionally inflaming the Muslim community), so we don't really need to worry about it as much. But the point is still valid: unless speech is provoking violence, or poses a danger to others, it is protected. Demanding censorship of this speech is unfounded and a bit haughty, if you think that you deserve special treatment because you might get offended.
To summarize, both groups are in the wrong, but there are other ways to express your displeasure for the actions others take. A parable: If someone were to flip me off and make me angry, it would be a rather inappropriate response to get everyone I know to flip that person off as they walked by. Similarly, it is inappropriate to get everyone to draw Mohammed simply because one person did it and got threatened for it.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
With regards to this issue, there is a clear cultural divide, and I believe, as I'm sure most others do, that rational, respectful discourse is the ticket to better understanding each other and coming to a resolution. Drawing inflammatory images around campus before having an open discourse that is well-publicized is just plain wrong.
I understand that SHIFT's aim in drawing Muhammed around campus was to create a discourse but did they need to be so offensive and inconsiderate to get there? Couldn't SHIFT and McSA come together to host an event where this topic is discussed? Basically I'm embarrassed to be a member a SHIFT today. They unnecessarily disrespected a large portion of our campus (both Muslim and not) and may have dirtied the waters for further discourse on an incredibly important and interesting issue.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
Also, for anyone who hasn't read SHIFT's official statement on this chalking please check it out. http://thenushift.blogspot.com/ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
Thanks, Amanda Litman Editor-in-chief, North by NorthwesternReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
Come on, SHIFT, you can do better than that. Let's talk about religious coercion from all sides. Let's talk about respecting all beliefs, including those of atheists. And let's learn.
Yes, you are within your rights to chalk whatever you want. But that doesn't mean you don't walk away from it looking like a jerk.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
2. There is a real problem of Islamophobia---there are many sites on the internet filled with hate against Islam. In a climate such as this, is it wise to promote activities that encourage more prejudice, bigotry and hate?
3. For those who say---we offend/direspect (Majority) Christians and they don't mind---so it should be ok for (Minority) Muslims too---is this really an argument. Should the low standards of respect acceptable to (Majority)Christianity be acceptable to(Minority)Muslims?---they are not acceptable to(Minority) Jews---anyone denys the holocaust, you go to Jail for anti-semitism.---no "freedom of speech" is going to change that. Sometimes, in the interests of Justice, minorities may need specific protections that a majority does not require.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
This means that SHIFT absolutely has the right to draw a picture of Muhammad. It also means that people have a right to call it childish, uninspired, and intentionally inflammatory.
I suggest for their next trick, SHIFT scrawl swastika's on the arch with signs that say "Don't like it? DEAL WITH IT." During sex week they could just paint giant penises and vulvas on sheets hung from trees. Black history month? They could wear shirts covered in the N-word, and for Gay-Pride week they could march up and down Sheridan chanting "GOD HATES FAGS".
O wait. You would never see those things on campus because we have common decency. Clearly, it isn't Muslims but radical Atheists that are the exception to the rule: even anti-Semites, racists and far-right evangelicals at NU don't try to start flame wars.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
1. For Islam to be accepted in the west it's going to have to be criticized like everything else in the west is, and so to is the prophet if someone so chooses. I don't agree with people going around and criticizing everything they lay their eyes on, but I do recognize their right to do so and think any attempt at censoring or silencing them is a cause for all to stand against.
2. There's a bit of hate spread on both sides. Though I do think SHIFT had a plausable point in targeting Islam as the latest censorship controversies are surrounding censorship and Islam, I think in an effort to be more "fair" and to make an unbiased point, they'd probably just be better off including more controversial pictures than just Muhammed.
3. It's not illegal to deny the Holocaust in the U.S. and if it were, though I think Holocaust deniers are complete idiots and scum I would completely support their right to deny whatever they want. And I'm sorry, but no Muslims shouldn't be given special treatment in getting more respect than others. That would only worsen the situation and create even more animosity and anger against Muslims. Our society is based on equality for all and any voiding of that is going to receive criticism. Look at affirmative action, they're many against it and they have a right to be angry about it whether you're for it or against it.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
I think all of this is worthy of mention not because people are associating themselves with Islam and calling themselves Muslims at a growing rate, but because it shows that there are many people in the United States and abroad that are taking a closer look at the religion past the stereotypes, misinformations, and lack of public knowledge; and they are seeing a face much different than the one being portrayed publicly. They are seeing a religion that is not brutal and murderous to the core as it has unfortunately been portrayed by some media outlets AND by those who exploit the religion and claim to commit such horrid acts in its name. They are seeing an ordinary religion, that can coexist in the West and the US. I honestly feel that so much of this tension will be dramatically assuaged if there is an increased effort for open dialogue on both sides. If nothing of this makes sense, I would be more than content with my appeal for dialogue and education on both sides being the only thing taken from this post.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
As a Muslim, I value responsible freedom of speech because I feel society cannot progress without having a mechanism to re-evaluate itself. This also applies to any dynamic religion. ---And I believe Islam, as a dynamic and adaptable religion, can only benefit from responsible freedom of speech and constructive criticism.
I feel that many are speaking in terms of blanket freedom of speech regardless of, and apart from, any value it may add/hold to society or the individual.---but should this be the case? Is freedom of speech the only important value?---what if this value compromises other values?
By the way---Muslims do not encourage any attempts at depiction (or statues) of the Prophet(pbuh) favourable or unfavourable.---this is very different from (favourable)statues and depictions of Buddha or Jesus Christ(pbuh) you find everywhere in the East and the West.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
1. First, I know this has been covered already, but it is LEGAL to deny the Holocaust states. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Northwestern has or has had, in the past, a couple Holocaust deniers on its faculty.
2. As to your question of whether the "low" standards of respect demanded by Christianity with regards to criticism within American society should also apply to Islam, my answer is an unequivocal yes. Oh right- it should apply to atheism too, and it largely does, even though "atheism" encapsulates such a huge swath of philosophies that simply take "probably no God" as their starting point. And really, again, I really don't see this as a blanket slap in the face to Islam that society must "protect" this minority against, which is a segue into my third point/question...
3. Again, what exactly is the reason why depicting Muhammad is illegal? If it's idolatry, why exactly is it applicable here or in the case of South Park? If it's not idolatry, please explain why. Don't simply say "it says so in the Qur'an/Hadith," please explain why it is in there. Finally, why does it apply to outsiders to the Islamic faith?ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
@T. Grant: I'm sorry but I'm not following what point you are trying to make exactly. Care to clarify? Perhaps I was unclear? I am simply saying that with education and exploration and open conversation the issue of Islam being accepted will no longer be a major issue, IN MY OPINION. If there is something I said that was unclear I'll try my best to clarify. If this is merely a battle of opinions, then I ask that we just agree to disagree.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
1) Having talked to members of SHIFT, their goal seems to have been to start a dialogue throughout the campus, which through controversial means, they have succeeded in doing. Unlike a forum or the weekly meeting that they already have, this singular act has managed to elicit a wide variety of responses, which in my opinion, is both admirable and unexpected.
Having attended this school for three years now, I have been surprised by the lack of political activism (with exception of the Living Wages Rally) and was excited to see the extent of the responses to SHIFT's actions. Too infrequently are such important and albeit difficult topics ignored or forsaken for daily life.
2) SHIFT's actions were offensive to Muslims on campus. However, while in this singular event, they targeted this set of beliefs, I believe the focus of the act and the dialogue is not Islam/secular relationships nor Islam specifically as a religion. The fact that this issue is being looked at from the point of view of many religions (myself being raised Jewish) shows the extent to which the question of free speech versus religion sanctity and respect is overwhelmingly a societal issue rather than one of a specific religion.
Thus I believe that SHIFT was correct in not compromising on a meeting or forum with McSA. While such a meeting would have and could be important for understanding between the two groups, it is not only Islam that SHIFT seems to want to include, but all issues of religion, free speech, respect, and special treatment. On the Facebook site for the meeting on Sunday, (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/event.php?eid=123687084309701&ref=ts) a SHIFT member says that "As for us breaking religious taboos, we're a young group, so we haven't done too much of it. However, our very first public action as a group was painting a bastardized version of Christian symbol on the rock" which received almost no attention.
While this action was offensive, the dialogue is clearly important to have and has elicited deeply emotional and passionate responses. This dialogue here, on this comment board, was the goal of SHIFT. I hope that critics and supporters of SHIFT's actions will be willing to continue this conversation, for that is the goal of any "freethinker".ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
Everyone just shut up for a minute and let me figure this out.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
These are my personal opinions....... I do not think that any society should accept "low" standards. Human beings should always strive to be better so as to build better societies.
As far as I know, depictions of the Prophet(pbuh) are not "illegal". To depict or not to depict is not an issue mentioned in the Quran one way or the other,----and historically, a few Muslims have depicted the Prophet(pbuh) in their art.
I think voilence, or threats of voilence are bad. As a Muslim, I would have no problem standing with anyone who wants to condemn voilence, or threats of voilence. ----And if this had been the main objective----it could have been done without involving the Prophet(pbuh) and/or his depiction.
As a Muslim, I am not asking anyone to believe in Prophet Muhammed(pbuh), I am not asking anyone to refrain from asking questions about his sanity or motives. I am not asking anyone to refrain from criticising Islam. What I am asking/requesting is something very simple----voluntarily stop using cartoons or other means to depict the Prophet(pbuh). There is no threat involved. All I am saying is----see me as the human being I am and try to understand your actions are hurtful.---if you refuse to understand and respect that....it is your choice.
Why do I request this? Because I want to be a Muslim....and you can help me. The Quran is strictly monotheist. There is none worthy of worship except God. Yet,I have great respect and love for Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) because he made a lot of sacrifices to bring guidance that helps me follow a path to goodness. Both Jesus Christ(pbuh) and Buddha have been great wisdom teachers who also brought guidance to mankind----but look what has happened, Buddha is worshipped by his followers---his statues are everywhere. Without actual depictions or statues of the Prophet(pbuh), as a Muslim, I have the freedom to worship God, and God alone, yet also freely express my love and respect for Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) as a person---without any fear I might fall into polytheism.
The measure of a society should not be about how "good" one is at offending another. It should be about everyone, Athiest, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, comming together to help each other be better human beings.
by the way----It is important to protect minorities---it doesn't matter what one's religion is or is not, it is a mattrer of justice, equality, and decency.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
Your post has come the closest so far of anyone actually trying to explain why these images might be offensive, and that is an answer I want to get at, could you please elaborate?ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
i) I still do not understand why a chalk stick-figure representing Muhammad is so offensive. I understand that it represents your God. I understand you might find it distasteful. But why can't you just ignore it? In Christianity, there is a commandment that says 'do not use the lord's name in vain' yet if someone says 'oh my god' or 'jesus christ' I don't think they would be that deeply offended.
ii) You also mention, "[a good society] should be about everyone, Athiest, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, comming together to help each other be better human beings." While I do not doubt your sincerity towards this noble goal, do you think any religion that claims that all other belief systems are false and heretical can foster genuine tolerance of religious diversity?
iii) I don't know if you support South Park's censorship, but if you do, why do you think religion - particularly the Muslim religion, should be particularly immune from drawing pictures of its God? South Park has done caricatures of many other religious figures and I think you would agree that the show was not targeting Muslims?ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
While idol-worship is one of the reasons why Islam prohibits any kind of imagery, it is not the only one. Also, whatever the reasons, this prohibition only applies to Muslims, not non-Muslims.
So why the big deal over these stick figures? We as Muslims revere Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) because of the sacrifices he made and the suffering he had to bear in order to deliver, what we believe is, God's message to us. We don't make images of him and don't like seeing them even if others make such images.
An image on TV can be avoided by flipping the channel or turning it off. An image on public property, however cannot. Muslims walking to class are forced to see it. We have as much right to use the sidewalks as anyone else. To see an image of a person that is so beloved, on the ground where people are walking over it, is very hurtful.
An example of the extent to which the Muslims revere him can be seen in the life of Sayyiduna Zayd ibn Al-Dathinnah, a companion of the Prophet who was taken prisoner and sold to a Qurayshi man who wanted to avenge his father's death in a previous battle with the Muslims. They tied him up to a pole in front of the Kaaba and a group of Quraysh (the clan that Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him] was a part of), including Abu Sufyan (not a Muslim at that time), came to witness the execution. When Zayd was brought forth to be killed, Abu Sufyan said "I call on you in God's name to tell me the truth, Zayd; do you not wish that Mohammed was here in your place, so that we could execute him, and that you were at home among your family?" "By Allah," Zayd replied, "I do not wish that Mohammed, at home as he is now [in Medina], should be hurt by a thorn prick in order that I could be at home among my family." Abu Sufyan said "I never saw anyone love another person so completely as Mohammed's companions love Mohammed."ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
Secondly, do you accept a stick figure depiction as Muhammad as valid? If not, why does it matter? You say it hurts that people are walking over him- would it have hurt less if SHIFT placed flyers of Muhammad on walls all over campus? Maybe they should have done that, then.
Seriously though, thank you for giving some concrete reasons, even though I don't necessarily think that they are sufficient to self-censor. It's amazing that throughout this entire saga, people in favor of the censorship have been amazingly unwilling to post actual reasons why this is offensive. In fairness, the Daily and NBN contributed to this problem by not addressing it in the stories, going "well, it's offensive because people say it's offensive, because it's offensive, because people say it's..."ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
I wouldn't know what a valid depiction of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is because I've never seen a real image of him. SHIFT made it pretty clear that they weren't drawing images of Muhammad Ali by explaining the context (the South Park censorship). In that case I think I'm justified in thinking that the stick figure labeled "Muhammad" is referring to my beloved Prophet (peace be upon him).
While a lot of Muslims, including myself, still wouldn't have liked to see depictions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), I think that if the stick figures were on flyers placed on walls it would've been less offensive.
For Muslims, an image of Jesus is almost as blasphemous as that of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) but you can't blame us for not making an issue about that if his most devoted followers, Christians, don't take offense with it. But I know that in Texas a play was canceled because it depicted Jesus as gay (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/theater/29arts-CORPUSCHRIST_BRF.html). So it's not just Muslims who don't like it when their Prophet is not treated with respect.
I guess the whole point of my argument is that free speech is great but why would you want to do something to hurt someone who is part of the same community as you? Especially if its not productive, as in this case. The radical Muslim group that threatened South Park creators will never hear of SHIFT's protest and even if they do, it's very unlikely that it will change their minds and prevent them from continuing with their threats. Muslims, on campus, who didn't protest the cartoon or call for censorship, however are left feeling hurt and alienated. What good did this action accomplish accept bring (negative) attention to SHIFT?ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
sorry for the poor diction.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
Again, the protest wasn't directed at Muslims. It was directed at everyone to simply ask why this specific action was worthy of suspending free speech for. SHIFT was probably mistaken in originally being like "offending Muslims? No, of course not!" Which just comes across as a lie. What they (and I) should have said from the get-go was that yes, offending some (but not all) Muslims was sort of the collateral here, though it was only directed at them insofar as that they are a part of American society, which this is ultimately directed at. The NU-Q thing was unfortunate because this isn't directed at Qatar society.
In the subsequent debate, I and others who supported SHIFT's action have been speaking a lot about the issues of Islam with the depiction, the ambiguities, etc., precisely because we think that we can win this debate on our opponents' terms. If we are able to prove that this isn't even a "sacred cow," again, a misnomer as I can eat beef in front of a Hindu here, then I believe that we have won without having to invoke questions like "why should 'sacred cows' from one group be protected," "why should any 'sacred cows' be protected," etc. In my opinion, we have been winning this debate on these first terms largely because no one (up until you) has been willing to make an attempt to prove that it is a sacred cow. But again, since we were debating on the front of "is depicting Muhammad as a stick figure really all that antithetical to Islamic beliefs?" people can easily and mistakenly infer that we're turning it into an us vs. them. But again, our opponents' terms are "if something is sacred to a people, it is protected against free speech so you don't hurt their feelings." SHIFT pretty much disagrees with that entire sentence, but we feel that if we can simply invalidate the first clause, the rest is irrelevant. This, as a by-product, means talking about Islam. The Islamaphobe writing Daily comments doesn't help our cause, either, and I would like to clear up the idea that he is associated with SHIFT- he isn't, I don't even think he's a student.
As far as Jesus depiction being censored in Texas, well, the play isn't "South Park" big. And, of course, he was depicted as gay, which is kind of up a level from "he is depicted at all." I highly doubt that a stick figure Jesus would have resulted in this debate. Honestly, given how little effort it takes to chalk a stick figure, maybe SHIFT should do a stick figure of Jesus for exactly that reason, though it seems like we have been established as "evil" in the greater community, and it is difficult to make people not hate you once they've condemned you, unless you're Michael Jackson. This absolutist good/evil obsession in society is an unfortunate relic from Christianity, IMO (and yes, this probably applies to anti-Islam discrimination post 9/11) Still, we oppose censorship like you cited too; again, SHIFT has been mostly about criticizing Christianity since it came into existence this year. If a big enough instance happens where society-at-large lazily accepts a Christian sacred cow (Lent for everybody!), you can be assured that SHIFT will protest that, too.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahed-amanullah/the-collective-punishment_b_570398.htmlReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
---For Muslims, neither positive nor negative images are OK. We are distressed by ANY image---because once you cross the line and accept an image---where do you then draw the line? ----how do you say, this image is OK and this is not---which is precisely the problem with Christianity and Buddhism---they already have positive images and statues that they themselves have made.
For Muslims, this is very important because the most unforgivable sin called "shirk" in the Quran is about creating "partners" of God. So for Muslims---this directly effects our practice of our religion, and our relationship with our Prophet(pbuh). Ofcourse, non-Muslims can draw whatever they want---But that is why Muslims are requesting that they voluntarily not do so in the intreasts of compassion and tolerance. It is a simple request and does not infringe on free speech. The argument that other images may be censored does not really apply when the circumstances of Islam/Muslims are so specific to our religion.
This request only applies to images, depictions of our Prophet(pbuh)---it does not restrict critisicm of Islam/Muslims when warranted. It also does not restrict any dialogue positive or negative concerning Prophet Muhammed(pbuh).
Can we not extend our hands in friendship to each other and live together in peace?
The U.S. has been a country that has been able to adapt to changing circumstances. Throughout, though mistakes have been made, it has come back to the principles of tolerance on which it was founded. Can it not do so again?ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No
"...do you thinki any religion that claims all other belief systems are false and heretical can foster genuine tolerance of religious diversity?"
Any belief system that aggressively fosters an "Us vs them" attitude has fallen into what is called "Iblisi logic" (Iblis=Satan in Islam). Al Gazzali, a philosopher and scholar explained that when people use arbitrary value judgements of superiortiy because of pride/arrogance, they have fallen into the temptations of Iblis(Satan). This explanation comes from a story in the Quran about the "Fall of Iblis"---if you are interested, I can explain.
Because only God is worthy of worship, (Tawheed), only he is "Superior" all else are equally inferior to God. This means that all human beings are equal to each other---both men and women. In Islam, God is Compassionate and Merciful and has sent messengers and guidance to all of mankind. The biblical line of Prophets are mentioned by name in the Quran.....the non-biblical messengers are not mentioned by name. Messengers/Prophets/Wisdom teachers have been sent since the time of Prophet Adam(pbuh). They have all brought the same message (Tawheed)---but these messages have been misunderstood over time and some have fallen into polythiesm by worshipping the messenger instead of following the message.ReplyReport Are you sure? Yes / No