Stalin took supplies from the US so what’s your point

lmao Life of Brian is not some deeply offensive movie about someone else's religion. It was made by a bunch of white dudes to mock some conception people they are surrounded by have of something that happened a long time ago. And you aren't bringing out a century of suffering and oppression when you say "Christianity r dumb!", you're punching up. "Satirizing" a religion of a persecuted ethnic minority is not just criticism. It's saying "we have complete control over you, deal with it."

muslims get more upset by it, which is precisely why it is fine to keep making muhammad cartoons

Maybe the just have more of an actual reason to? Like, they're more actually religious than others who view religion as more of a cultural signifier than a spiritual thing, like in the US.

The entire point of transgressive art is that it transgresses, and challenges ideas about ourselves

Doesn't really work, when "ourselves" is a religious and ethnic minority in a western imperialist country that has participated in committing mass murder against people of that broad ethnic minority.

The taboos of muslims are just as open to challenge as the taboos of anyone else.

Maybe in a Muslim majority country where they can actually have that kind of discussion without it just immediately becoming a racist gang-banging.

The racist component is almost the entirety of this "art", especially since its mainly done by white people who are either Christian or agnostic. And the jokes that are poked at Christianity are never the same, because they aren't directed at a minority group and they usually involve a level of respect and a usually joking attitude. You don't see many mainstream people literally saying "Christianity is dumb and its followers are basically bad/ignorant people". That kind of language is explicitly reserved for Muslims. And as far as I know, this is entirely one sided. You don't see Muslims in the Middle East saying Christianity is dumb and Judaism is dumb, because those are actually somewhat of a basis for Islam. So again, "criticism" of Islam seems to be entirely Islamophobia. You simply can't say it is fine for people in white supremacist countries to "criticize" a religion that they have been violently and savagely murdering members of for at least the last 50 if not 100 years.

It's the same concept as "critical support" for Syria or whatever. I have "critical support" for Islam because it is a common (but obviously loose in many ways) bond between a billion people who are largely experiencing almost all of the most horrific violence that exists in the world right now.

IIRC, the account of that killing is heavily disputed. It doesn't come from the Quran itself, but rather from some Hadiths (basically written down accounts of things the Prophet and his companions did) and plenty of past and present Muslim scholars argue that the Hadiths relating to this story are pretty weak in terms of their verifiability, and likely fabricated.

Often Hadiths were forged long after Muhammeds death by people who knew that having a document of the Prophet doing something which supported their point of view could be very advantageous materially/ideologically. Perhaps a ruler centuries wanted a Poet killed, but thought he needed to invent sacred precedent to do so.

There are, however, other Hadiths that suggest Muhammed was a pretty tolerant guy, saying that he once checked on the health a women who threw trash at him everyday and so on. We'll probably never know the actual truth of any of these, because of the frequent unreliability of Hadiths.

For what it's worth here's a post on a Salafi QA website (Salafis are frequently seen in the Global North as the bad kinds of Muslims) which passionately argues that the story of Asma bint Marwan is complete propaganda.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/177694/the-story-of-the-killing-of-asma-bint-marwaan-is-false

See above comment by T_Doug.

Kind of; there was allegedly a poet (Asma bint Marwan) who criticized tribesmen who converted to Islam and Mohammed himself via poems. She was allegedly killed, although it is disputed whether this was done on behalf of Mohammed or just the work of a different individual who went after her by himself; it is also disputed as to whether or not this even happened.

no you should shut the actual fuck up and be smarter

this discourse always feeds into liberal imperialism against the history of * the others* . we shouldnt discuss it in these terms

I was actually thinking of making a no-judgement, open Ask Muslims thread on the new !islam community we have, so I was anticipating questions like this, don't worry. So long as they are in good faith, which this seems to be. In the interest of not derailing this thread I'll keep it short. Also realize I am not an authority in Islam - no one but God is, which is why Islam traditionally has no clergy.

The usual tack you will see is the cultural relativist one, that it was not seen as unusual at the time. We're talking about a very different cultural context where marriages were of political expedience and could spell the life or death of a movement or even an entire community, where before the Prophet women were reduced to basically objects. The subsistence strategy was different, it was a survival-based society, to the point that people literally aged physically faster. However you have probably seen this a lot, so I will not belabor the point.

The more important point that I've rarely seen talk about - the hadith that talk about Aisha's age at the time of marriage are suspiciously the only few hadith that really describe specific ages, because at the time, people barely kept track of these things. They had calendars that learned elite kept track of somewhat, but the average person did not pay attention to age number, that's a modern concept that didn't apply back then. Instead, age of majority for women was based on menarche, and for men was usually based on completion of training since this was a warrior society.

Why is this important? Because almost every single hadith that describes Aisha's age at the time of marriage was narrated by Aisha herself, when she was a middle aged woman enraptured in a civil war where emphasizing herself as the Prophet's only virginal wife would legitimize her side. Not that I'm saying she was consciously actively lying, I don't think she was, but that she and many others probably didn't know her exact age, and she was guesstimating her menarche as young an age as possible to emphasize her point.

i have no idea what you're implying or how i'm supposed to respond?