this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
564 points (85.6% liked)

memes

10658 readers
3586 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] slazer2au 125 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] Glowstick 108 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (14 children)

Really? Besides Muhammad, name 1 other well known person who showing a benign picture of him causes a real risk of getting killed by his fans?

[–] Draghetta 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Noooooo you forgot the (PBUH) when you mentioned Muhammad (PBUH), now I will have to kill you :( look what you made me do

[–] Glowstick 32 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Don't worry, i was actually taking about Muhammad Ali

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

You shall be spared this time Mashallah

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

How DARE you speak that name with even the slightest link to derision! I mean, erm, Jar Jar Binks.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 91 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

I'm really confused about the "No one can have my picture but almost every single one of my male believers is going to carry my name" situation.

Religions are kind of weird, aren't they?

[–] Tyfud 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Always has been. Religion is the single biggest reason to not believe in religion.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pyre 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

the picture thing is to avoid idolatry, which was the main type of religion in the region at the time Islam was beginning. people were used to worship to (or via) visual depictions of gods, so a ban on visual representations of people was an effort to avoid people falling into old habits.

that's why currently an overwhelming majority of Muslims don't care about depictions of people in general, but they still don't allow the prophet or god to be depicted (god isn't supposed to have any physical form anyway) because that would be too close to idolatry.

kind of the opposite approach of christians with pagans, where christians appropriated pagan symbols to make Christianity more appealing, media were concerned with differentiating themselves from other religions.

uttering names isn't taboo in Islam like it is in Christianity. while some Christians avoid saying God, Jesus or the like, Muslims are encouraged to use god's name frequently. however they're not allowed to call people certain names reserved for god alone, but that isn't the case for the prophet. so it's considered sort of a tribute or a sign of respect to name people after the prophet.

interesting fact, Muhammed isn't the prophet's only name, so while this is the most common name in the world, the number of people named after the prophet is even higher, because it includes some other names, most common after Muhammed being Ahmed.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 71 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please 34 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I remember when the South Park drama happened, and Matt and Trey were both like “you guys realize he’s been in every single episode for months now, right? He’s in the intro. It’s only an issue now because we had him as a focus of the episode.”

[–] [email protected] 61 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There once was a post on the Onion about a caricature of Christian, Judaist, Hindu and Buddhist gods having an orgy and no believers wishing death upon the author, but sighing and closing the tab instead.

[–] Valmond 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There was one with mohammed included too in a french satirical paper, but it was sometimes in the -70 or -80. Much cooler times.

[–] recklessengagement 22 points 4 months ago (5 children)

...didn't that French newspaper then much later end up getting shot up?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 55 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

Pls don't kill me for posting this. A holy warrior already smote the guy that drew it 🙏

[–] dual_sport_dork 23 points 4 months ago (6 children)

My question is, if it is supposedly abominable to show a picture of Mohamed, thus there are no extant pictures of him, how does the claim that any particular doodle of a guy in a turban with a beard actually is a depiction of Mohamed stand up to logical scrutiny? (That was a rhetorical question. I know my error was actually in including the word "logic.")

You can't prove it's actually him. This could just be the Continuing Adventures of Captain Bomb Hat, an individual completely unrelated.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You'll KNOW it's a drawing of Muhammad because the artist will be killed by a Muslim.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

That's why it's very silly. You can literally go around with a label maker and put "This is officially a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad" on any random thing.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] gofsckyourself 43 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 months ago

No this is a common misconception. That's Brian, and he is a very naughty boy

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

For a moment I thought this was a character from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure lol

[–] moonknlght 14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

How do we know it’s not?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] udon 36 points 4 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CodexArcanum 23 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Well, because Exodus 20:4-6, the Second Commandment, says:

4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Belief It or Not just did an episode about it, too.

What's interesting is both how lax Christians and Jews are about it, and how severe the wording actually is. By some interpretation, any visual depiction of nearly anything is an idol. Certainly a big statue of Jesus or a fresco of God should both qualify, and yet...

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 23 points 4 months ago

There was a whole schism in the Byzantine Empire during the late 700s over whether religious iconography constituted graven images. This enveloped all the Abrahamic Religions and periodically reasserted itself for nearly a millennium, both in the academic sphere and in riots lead by hot-headed zealots of various sects.

Muslims simply ended up on the iconoclast side of the fence once the dust settled. If you study art history of the region, you get some truly incredibly geometric patterns emerging throughout the Muslim world, well into the 20th century, because of this stricture against iconography. There's some speculations iconoclasm inspired efforts to produce these shapes and patterns, resulting in a heavy religious patronage of Islamic mathematics in much the same way the Renaissance Era in Europe contributed to the modernization of art and sculpture.

But the idea that Islam is somehow unique in the views on artistic reproduction of the human form is really more an artifact of history than of the religion itself. Absent certain twists of fate, we'd be angrily denouncing Muslims for making big bronze statues of their religious figures, which 600 years of Protestant iconoclasty informs us is only something a bunch of evil religious psychos would ever do.

[–] GCanuck 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Punish third and fourth generations for the sins of their ancestors. Sure whatever.

Showing love to a thousand who love and keep commandments. Sure fine.

But what happens if my grandparents loved and kept commandments, but my parents didn’t? Does the punishment supersede the love? Or do me and my kids get fucked, but my grandkids are back in the good graces?

Just sayin.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)
[–] solrize 16 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I need explainxkcd.com, but for memes.

[–] [email protected] 78 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

There have been several violent incidents in reaction to published depictions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, which is strictly forbidden by some interpretations of the Sahih al-Bukhari, one of the major Sunni Islamic texts.

I'm assuming that's what's being alluded to here.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago (3 children)

But like, that's stupid they don't expect us to eat halal why do they expect us not to depict their prophet?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's not every muslim. Only the bigoted/loudest ones. Just like not every christian intimidates you to accept Jesus as your savior.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991 13 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Basically they managed to convince a lot of people that drawing Mohammad is hate speech, while obviously such depictions do exist (especially those that also conflate having an Arabic decent with Islamism), it's just certain fundamentalists won the free marketplace of ideas through bullying and terrorism.

Despite all the legitimate critiques, it was a mistake to succumb, now Christian fundamentalists are trying the same, see the overreaction to the Olympics.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

Je suis Charlie.

[–] CaptainBlagbird 7 points 4 months ago

KnowYourMeme.com is the closest i could think of. Maybe combined with urbandictionary.com

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] drunkpostdisaster 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There was a time in Europe where it was illegal to draw something to realistic thanks to the church.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

There was also a time when it was believed that Jesus, being perfect, was incapable of change. It’s why so many old paintings of Jesus look like middle aged babies; They believed that Jesus was born with an adult’s body, just baby-sized. Cuz if he was perfect, there would be no room for change. So lots of old paintings of Jesus have him looking like a tiny middle aged man.

[–] captainlezbian 8 points 4 months ago (6 children)

I love that he has a receding hairline there. Also that’s a bit old of a look for a man who died at like 30

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Seleni 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hmmm

Even the Far Side got in on the act

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Etterra 9 points 4 months ago

Yeah this always struck my as bonkers. I personally like how South Park did it - with a full-body censor car. Even then the religious fanatics got salty about it.

load more comments
view more: next ›