here is the link, its locked by the way beware of the quasi-fascists that are the western europeans
edit: its really easy to attract the islamophobes in this chat
here is the link, its locked by the way beware of the quasi-fascists that are the western europeans
edit: its really easy to attract the islamophobes in this chat
asking me to follow religious rules is absolutely too much, yes.
so if a japanese asks you to take of your shoes when entering his home, are you gonna call him an asshole too, to you basic decency is opression, and you want anyone from the global southto call you a comrade, radlib
The difference is that if you enter a Japanese person's house in shoes, it won't result in a random dude getting his fucking head cut off lol.
Here's what I don't understand, if someone says that something is offensive in their religion I'm obviously going to respect that because I'm not an asshole. But if they say that something is a crime in their religion and the punishment is getting beheaded then I'm super not cool with that. They are imposing on me the rules of their religion, which I'm not a part of.
It's the same way with Christianity and abortion or homosexuality. Everyone agrees that it's not cool that Christians are imposing their morality on the rest of the world, why is it different with Islam? That's an honest question, correct me if I'm being a lib.
deleted by creator
Being criticized over deliberately antagonizing people for their religious beliefs, especially if those people have been oppressed by the dominant culture, is not the same thing as being forced to follow a religion. It's not a hard difference to understand. And your comment seems to assume that Muslim people as a whole endorse the beheadings and are using them to impose Islam on other people. Which is a dangerous assumption to make.
It's not a dangerous assumption; it's wrong and Islamophobic.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What does taking your shoes off when entering someone's home has to do with their race? Why would you keep your shoes on, unless specifically asked in the first place?
because its a respect thing (japanese tradition) just like not drawing muhammad is for muslims
Uhm, but you wouldnt take your shoes off when going to say a Germans friend place? I've never heard of this being a Japanese tradition specifically, thought everybody does that.
Idk about the whole Mohammed thing. You're free to draw whatever you want, but showing these drawings to your Muslim friends is when it crosses the line into assholery. Just line showing pictures of your rare steak to your vegan friends is kinda shitty, even though in private you might love steak...
idk about germany but you dont take out your shoes in latin america when entering a home, but if a japanese asked me to i would do it ,just like if a muslim asked me to not draw muhammad.
Ok. In Europe (both East and West) taking your shoes off is also pretty universal, that's why I got confused by the comparison. But it still kinda holds.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You barbarians don’t take your shoes off inside the home?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
thats about cleanliness not religion, you people are fucking stupid
its a traditions you dense idiot, stop being such a western chauvinist and accept not everyone country is a parasitic imperialist country based in western supremacy
Removed by mod
literally what the fuck are you talking about you fucking fool
"take off your shoes or stay out of my house" completely valid. the reason is cleanliness. theres nothing wrong with that. similarly, "dont draw muhammad in my house or go away" thats fine too
"dont draw muhammad in your own house" is fucking absurd and it's disgusting that you support it. its like a christian telling you not to have gay sex in your house because it's offensive to their religion
fuck all the way off, your religion does not have power over my fucking life
Why would you ever draw Muhammad? About the only reason anyone ever does is in an attempt to deeply insult an enormous number of people. That kind of "fuck you I do what I want" mentality doesn't garner much sympathy from me. Having a reasonable amount of respect for your fellow human beings (i.e., not doing something you would never otherwise do specifically to piss them off) is something we need more of.
Yeah, you're free to yell the N-word at the top of your lungs in public. Yeah, if a black person decides to beat you to death for it they're in the wrong, too. But my sympathy for you in that situation is limited because maybe you shouldn't be an absolute piece of shit just because you technically can.
Removed by mod
i have never had any desire to do so and i probably never will, but it is not immoral to do so and i have every right if i did want to
Yes, that's exactly the "fuck you I do what I want" mentality I was criticizing. That makes you a massive piece of shit, even if you're technically free to do it.
You shouldn't be a massive piece of shit, and you certainly aren't accomplishing anything if you choose to be one. You should be a decent human being.
ok, imagine for a second that i tell you that, according to my religion, it is wrong to wear red on tuesdays. wearing red on tuesdays is a completely benign act im sure we can both agree, there is nothing wrong with doing so. but ill be offended if you do it.
are you an asshole for deciding to wear red on tuesday? no. of fucking course not. you're also not racist, or a lib, or a chud, or a reactionary, or any of the shit im being called in these comments.
How common is wearing red? How common is drawing a picture of Muhammad?
The reasonableness of the request is in large part determined by how burdensome it is to fulfill.
The teacher who was beheaded did not draw the prophet. The elderly woman and man who were beheaded in the church in Nice did not draw the prophet.
Note that a few comments up I've already said killing someone over this is wrong. No one is arguing that people should get the death penalty for drawing Muhammad. The argument is that you're a huge asshole if you do, because there's no reason to do it besides pissing people off.
its not about whether the request is reasonable, its about whether you're an asshole or racist or whatever for refusing. and it is very very easy for you to never wear red again in your life, so surely just not wearing red for one day of the week is not that unreasonable?
if not wearing red on tuesdays were a muslim tradition, you absolutely would be calling me out the exact same way for saying i dont intend to follow that tradition
But I wear red plenty now, so it would at least be somewhat of a burden to remember not to wear red on Tuesdays. It's not a burden at all to not draw Muhammed because I never draw him anyway.
It's the going out of one's way to be as offensive as possible that makes this asshole behavior. No one's ordinary routine is being disrupted, no one's being even slightly inconvenienced.
What if you never wear red but, upon being told you're racist if you wear red on tuesdays, you decide to start wearing red on tuesdays? Does this circularly make you racist?
People don't like being told not to do harmless things because of other people's religious or personal beliefs and will often do those things as a result of being told not to do them because, again, they are harmless things that should not be stigmatized. Drawing pictures of any human who has ever lived or will ever live is a harmless activity which should not get you called racist or an asshole. It doesn't matter if this is just one guy and you could draw any of the other guys who have ever lived, there is no reason not to draw him.
If I never did something -- let's call it drawing a picture of Muhammad -- but I started doing it specifically to piss off a group of people my country has demonized and killed by the millions, yes, I would be an enormous piece of shit.
How have Chechens been demonized and killed by France? A country explicitly supporting them and their most reactionary elements in their struggles against Russia.
You're intentionally omitting the religious aspect here, which is the whole point.
ok, so say someone wears red on a tuesday and i fucking brutally murder them for it
its their fault, right?
No, and I already gave you this scenario and this answer in this same thread. You're just being argumentative at this point.
Log the fuck off for a bit
The going out of your way argument is good in principle but we're not talking here about a dude just drawing pictures of Muhammad and running around shoving it into random people's faces, are we? It was a teacher, showing the cartoons (that he himself didn't draw) from a well known (even if in very bad taste) magazine in his ethics class as part of a discourse on religious tolerance, censorship, personal freedom. We don't even fucking know his personal stance on the caricatures. On top of that, he got beheaded by a guy from Chechnya, a republic that has never in its history been subject to French colonialism. A republic that has social mores and is ruled in pretty much the same way as Salafist Saudi Arabia. So no, this here is not the hill leftists should die defending because it has zero relevance to the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of Muslims.
No one is arguing that killing someone over this is OK.
The "it's for class" reasoning doesn't hold much water either. We learn about all sorts of things we shouldn't do without needing to see an example of them, and it's not as if a picture of a person is such a difficult concept to grasp that it requires examples.
It holds all the water because context matters. I also don't know what to tell you if you think the purpose of such a class is "to show what a historical figure looks like". Tell me though, would you also ban showing historical photos of banners with the swastika in a history lesson about Nazis because displaying it would hurt the sensibilities of Jewish pupils present and one could describe a swastika by saying it's a black cross with perpendicular lines at each end? Would you ban the virulently racist attitudes, expletives and slave beatings in a film about slavery? This shit comes too close for comfort to lib performative idpol with its deliberate dismissal of context.
Removed by mod
no one has ever said "don't draw Muhammad in your own house"??? where the hell are you getting this from. nobody is asking you to not draw Muhammad in private, that's absurd and irrelevant to the question. this whole discourse is about western reactionaries intentionally enflaming the situation by drawing Muhammad outwardly, usually in racist big-nosed depictions i might add.
deleted by creator
There are plenty of people who eventually found their way to leftism, but took a detour through mid-2000s atheism. Mid-2000s atheism did rip on other religions occasionally, but of course Islam was the main target as the War on Terror was still relatively popular.
deleted by creator
Every chud is a crank in the same way, every leftist is still a :LIB: in at least one way that's unique
*Bourgeois rules, *the proletariat's throat (uwu)
the evangelical death cult is old news, not much to talk about
I don't know under what rock you've been living if you are new to the massive leftist vitriol against fundamentalist Christians, against fundamentalist Hindus, against the Buddhist monstrous slave state in Tibet pre PRC, against Zionism. Just because it's not ok to just denigrate and pick vicious fights with religious folks who keep their religion to themselves does not in any way justify lionising religious bigots who would kill you first thing for being an "apostate".
Zero people in this thread are doing that.
i literally criticized christians for the same shit 2 comments up you dumbfuck piece of shit
i live in alabama, i have a seething hatred for christians and have never knowingly interacted with a muslim. why the fuck are you accusing me of this bullshit?
deleted by creator
funny how im "islamophobic" for rejecting religious rule of literally the entire world's population, but not "christophobic" for the same thing
deleted by creator
Outright Nazis are also a minority, should the left also protect their honour and their sacred screeds from the dominant imperialist neo-liberals?
are you seriously unironically equating persecuted religious minorities and nazis, jesus fucking christ
Don't use the lord's name in vain, we might have Christians from countries with persecuted Christian minorities browsing this site.
I equate standing up for minorities explicitly pushing a violently reactionary agenda with idiotism. Wahabists are such a minority.
“standing up against islamophobia is the same thing as defending nazis” is a super smart leftist thing to say.
So anti-wahabism is anti-islamophobia now? You know the sect that would gladly massacre all other Muslims if given the chance. Reactionary minorities are reactionary. No passaran.
fuck off dude, thats a ridiculous way of looking at things
a muslim's right to tell a person what they can and can not draw based on religious rules end at their own doorstep. i dont care if they're drawing muhammad and then printing it on flags and flying those flags on every street corner in the entire world, it literally does not matter and anyone who gets upset at them for it is responsible for their own feelings, because no one has any obligation to respect rules specific to their religion
so once again, "drawing Muhammad in your own home" is not the question at hand here, you accept this. now you need to accept that nobody gives a shit about questioning the "morality" of drawing Muhammad in a vacuum just as no leftist with half a brain thinks the literal letter structure of the n-word is morally evil on its own. we're talking about cultural contexts. and just as it's morally wrong to go out of your way to be racist towards black people, it's morally wrong to go out of your way to be racist towards Muslims. and it takes a bizarre amount of effort in this context as well, i mean you are arguing for the right for people to make elaborate art just to be racist.
there is literally nothing racist about drawing muhammad as a statement that you dont respect religious guidelines, just in the same way there's nothing racist about waving a pride flag in a christian's face. when people try to impose their religious rules on you and you decide to go out of your way to disrespect those rules, that isnt fucking racist.
these people the OP is talking about are almost certainly racist, yes, but it is not racist to draw muhammad
muslims are a race, and its racist to draw muhammad now, read the room my friend. this is the way of things. stop trying to conflate everything under the western conception of "religion" as if you can approach them all in the exact same way, you imperialist fuck. come to each one humbly with your head bowed, and attempt to learn something new about a different culture, for once in your fucking life.
what the fuck is wrong with you lmao this is absurd
race is a social construct and not a biological one, and if you spend 5 seconds looking at the Western discourse you will see that Muslims have undergone racialization. how have you missed this?
ok, if they're a race then they don't have religious rules i need to respect because races are something you are born into and not sets of beliefs that you follow and impose on others
sure, if that's the tack you want to go on. now that we've established islam has been racialized, and that it's extremely obvious that plastering drawings of Muhammad on the walls has been weaponized as form of racial oppression (again take 5 seconds to look at the discourse), can we agree it's fucking racist to do it? and there's precedence of course - culture is a fickle thing and anything can be turned into a slur with enough effort by racists, and we're not even talking about a word, we're talking about elaborately drawing something lmao.
why is it racial oppression to draw pictures of some guy? it's against muslims religious beliefs, but we're not talking about a religion here, we're talking about a race.
because racists have turned it into racial oppression? i just said culture is a fickle thing and this is how racial slurs and racial oppression develops, just look at blackface.
Liberals literally have history backwards. It was the historic material conditions of black exploitation which generated the superstructure of anti-black culture in order to rationalize the existing state of affairs.
blackface is mockery of a specific race's features. drawing muhammad is mockery of a specific religion's rules. how is there any similarity?
i don't know how many times i have to keep saying this - racial oppression develops culturally, meaning there could be no logic to it but it becomes racist anyway due to the usage by racists for that purpose. for example, a lot of slurs have literally no etymological meaning, such as the "G" word used against Asians. you are trying to make racism seem logical, when it isn't and never has been.
Is being anti-zionist anti-semitic?
maybe because it's totally wrong?
please read Marx
*bourgeois racists use this 100% logical ideology for the purpose of maintaining exploitative worker relations.
so when and how am i allowed to criticize those who wish to impose their religious rules on me?
it's just a word guys stop imposing your rules on me i can say it whenever i want
is being black a religion?
Can't you read?
no, but being black could be described as a "din" interestingly enough, which Islam describes itself as, as the English word "religion" and its connotations did not exist in classical Arabic. Would you like to learn things from an Islamic perspective, considering you "have never knowingly interacted with a muslim"?
ok so how do i state my disinterest in following their religious rules without being racist?
No one asks that you follow ramadan don't work on fridays or quit eating pork. You can even draw mohammed in your own home. But drawing muhammad in our society with it's context has been made into a racist attack on Muslims. I don't know if dogwhistle is the right term, but it is similar, i think.
It's baffling how stupid liberals like you don't realize that by being so afraid of even talking about or being associated with some, basically neutral thing, be it a meme, a subculture, scene or social space online that the right has even so much as vaguely tried to associate itself with, they are literally ceding ground and surrendering said thing to the right. The right barely has to do any effort to take over something it seems, just make the vaguest gesture that said thing is their turf and culture war obsessed lefties immediately hand it over to them because they are obsessed with appearing pure and free of anything even vaguely "problematic".
You are a fucking idiot and in a perfect world you would be born without hands so that no one would ever have to read your shitty posts. Inshallah that happens to you one day
This is what happens when you're an idealistic liberal. Marxists know that historical material conditions are the base from which all these superstructure ideologies are formed. If an idea is racist, it's because the material world you live in is racist, like it's the symptom of a deeper disease.
deleted by creator
That comment is so absurdly idiotic that I assumed he was trolling at first. But no, somehow he actually believes it.
deleted by creator
the statement "religion is reactionary" as if you could conflate everything under the western conception of “religion” is unmaterial and unmarxist, go to bed.
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. it is the VAPORWAVE of the masses.
It's interesting how civilians murdering each other on the basis of race gets them branded as reactionaries but using the same label on those who murder on the basis of religion is a bit too far-fetched.
It's also interesting how you selectively invoke that quote from Marx while conveniently omitting the wider point, that religion is the "illusory Sun" that "revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself". Which is to say, religion in practice is an organ of bourgeois reaction, used for the exploitation and estupefaction of the working class.
You are an opportunist and a revisionist and wallahi you will one day be punished for your treachery.
deleted by creator
The majority of racists don't act out on any violent fantasies they might hold, it still makes them reactionaries. You fucking dolt.
deleted by creator
The point is that it doesn't matter whether you say or do anything racist to be a reactionary, you just need to hold racist views. The same applies to religious zealotry.
deleted by creator
imagine accusing a middle easterner of orientalism, just take the L and go home
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator