If youre asking why its heretical in Islam to produce an image of Muhammad, there’s a deep history of iconoclasm in all of the Abrahamic religions and have each decided on how to deal with religious imagery in their own practice. Islam has the strictest interpretation, but they all have writings dealing with it.
If you’re asking why the meme is offensive, it’s because the implication that Muslims are ‘a fanatic fan base that will murder you for as little as producing an image of Muhammad’. It’s definitionally islamophobic.
It doesn’t help that the “image of Muhammad” that these chuds want to produce is almost always the most vile and racist caricature you could possibly imagine, not far off from the Happy Merchant antisemitic one
It’s a good example of selection bias. Everyone who respects Muslims won’t draw the prophet, then the ones who don’t are gonna make some egregiously racist art.
I am asking why it’s more offensive to say “Mohammed has an annoying fan base” than it is to say “Jesus has an annoying fan base,” which the original photo does. I get that both are offensive, it just seems like they are on par for a meme, and both are in there.
Because one side says Jesus’s fans are annoying and the other says Muhammad’s fans are fanatical murderers. They are not being called the same thing. Being called annoying is whatever. Being called a fanatical murderer is completely different.
That makes a lot of sense. I think I read the caption differently in the second image, seeing the word “fanatical” as identifying a group within the group rather than describing the whole. Like “an average Muslim won’t kill you for it, but the fanatical ones will, so best not to show an image.” Maybe wishfu/optimistic interpretation.
Honestly, if the meme was revised to just the left panel, plus an empty frame with Muhammad’s name, it would be a far better and less offensive meme. I may have even chuckled at it.
But the right panel isn’t just calling Muslims an annoying fanbase - it’s portraying them as fanatical murderers, which is a part of the way the west commonly portrays Muslims as ‘barbaric’ and dangerous. It isn’t just ‘offensive’, it’s islamophobic
That makes a lot of sense. I think I read the caption differently in the second image, seeing the word “fanatical” as identifying a group within the group rather than describing the whole. Like “an average Muslim won’t kill you for it, but the fanatical ones will, so best not to show an image.” Maybe wishfu/optimistic interpretation.
Isn’t that the same tenet, it’s just interpreted differently? That is Christians historically treating it as idols dedicated to other deities, with inconsistent although not completely absent application to Christian figures (like IIRC one Protestant grievance against Catholics had to do with their use of idols, particularly idols of saints).
It also has to be said that Islam is not unique nor monolithic in terms of how rigidly its followers adhere to its tenets nor even what those tenets are assumed to mean, and historically Muslim depictions of Muhammad in religious art did happen and were accepted in some places and at some times. The modern extremeness of the issue is a combination of the unusually hardline and extreme interpretation pushed by Saudi Arabia - which US intelligence has helped it export globally because salafist militants both tend to do the sort of reactionary violence that furthers American interests and have provided a casual pretext for the US to roll in and start occupying whomever it pleases whenever it pleases - and the fact that it’s basically just a racist airhorn used by blowhards who want to say “I hate you and hold you in complete contempt, so I’m publicly thumbing my nose at you and daring you to try something” in a way that invites retaliation from aggrieved and impulsive young men who already feel disaffected and targeted by racism.
I’m pretty sure you can find historical examples of paintings of Muhammad online like right now. There’s also plenty that just hide his face behind a ball of light surrounded by his companions who all look the same so it’s fair to guess what the artist would have put there if not for the iconoclasm.
A lot of the paintings are really cool. There’s been debate and speculation among art historians about Islamic art influencing the Renaissance. Different painting techniques could have originated in the Middle East before getting exported back to Europe during the Crusades.
One piece of evidence for this is with etching. The etching of metal was first used by Arabs to mark their equipment so if they died, their stuff could be taken back to their families. Europeans learned of this technique and applied it to metal plates. Copper is much more durable than woodblocks and you can make more copies before the master gets damaged or destroyed. This led to more effective printing because crews could work faster not worrying about damaging their tools.
This is the full picture, thank you for elaborating
It’s important to note that while Christians largely interpret the iconoclasm differently, they do still have hard and fast rules that clash with contemporary culture, and are cited by extremists as justification for acts of terror and murder. The fact that those extremists are largely seen as aberrations while Muslim extremists are seen as inherent to the faith is the result of islamophobic bigotry
This is only tangentially related, but now I’m imagining a bunch of America first chuds assaulting people who wear American flag print clothing bacause it’s a flag code violation.
Just to add to what she said, Eastern Orthodox Christians have an interesting rule where they allow flat icons only. Statues are prohibited because they’re too close to the real form of the objects they represent. They also tend to take on a more abstract style with their icons, while Catholic icons have a more realistic style that I believe later influenced romanticism.
Isn’t that the same tenet, it’s just interpreted differently?
It’s the same, but christianity abandoned it entirely because without pictures, figures etc it would not be much attractive for potential pagan converts. Some orthodox tried to return to it later, but failed and were declared heretics (look iconoclasm). To be fair a lot of muslims also don’t give a shit, some denominations officially, some not.
Yeah my question isn’t why is an image of him offensive. Since they’ve actually made the choice not to break that tenet in this meme, my question is why is it more offensive to reference Mohammed in the second panel than it is to actually have a picture of Jesus in the first image. Seems like an equal critique of both Christianity and Islam, so I don’t know why one is worse, but all the comments are just about the rule barring images of Mohammed.
Yeah that feels obvious now lol. For whatever reason I was focused only on the caption of the first meme and just saw the second as racking on one more group rather than reading into the caption. But I read the word “fanatical” as identifying a group within the group rather than describing the whole. Like “an average Muslim won’t kill you for it, but the fanatical ones will.” Maybe wishful interpretation.
![[CW: Islamophobia] .World fully embracing their Islamophobic reddit heritage](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/a5783505-bb45-439f-b361-454685693ffd.png){kind=link}
So I am not Christian or Muslim, but is there a reason that referencing Mohammed is more offensive than having Jesus in the first image?
Depends on what you’re asking, honestly.
If youre asking why its heretical in Islam to produce an image of Muhammad, there’s a deep history of iconoclasm in all of the Abrahamic religions and have each decided on how to deal with religious imagery in their own practice. Islam has the strictest interpretation, but they all have writings dealing with it.
If you’re asking why the meme is offensive, it’s because the implication that Muslims are ‘a fanatic fan base that will murder you for as little as producing an image of Muhammad’. It’s definitionally islamophobic.
It doesn’t help that the “image of Muhammad” that these chuds want to produce is almost always the most vile and racist caricature you could possibly imagine, not far off from the Happy Merchant antisemitic one
It’s a good example of selection bias. Everyone who respects Muslims won’t draw the prophet, then the ones who don’t are gonna make some egregiously racist art.
Easy: just use the Jesus one but with blackface /s
I am asking why it’s more offensive to say “Mohammed has an annoying fan base” than it is to say “Jesus has an annoying fan base,” which the original photo does. I get that both are offensive, it just seems like they are on par for a meme, and both are in there.
Because one side says Jesus’s fans are annoying and the other says Muhammad’s fans are fanatical murderers. They are not being called the same thing. Being called annoying is whatever. Being called a fanatical murderer is completely different.
That makes a lot of sense. I think I read the caption differently in the second image, seeing the word “fanatical” as identifying a group within the group rather than describing the whole. Like “an average Muslim won’t kill you for it, but the fanatical ones will, so best not to show an image.” Maybe wishfu/optimistic interpretation.
Honestly, if the meme was revised to just the left panel, plus an empty frame with Muhammad’s name, it would be a far better and less offensive meme. I may have even chuckled at it.
But the right panel isn’t just calling Muslims an annoying fanbase - it’s portraying them as fanatical murderers, which is a part of the way the west commonly portrays Muslims as ‘barbaric’ and dangerous. It isn’t just ‘offensive’, it’s islamophobic
That makes a lot of sense. I think I read the caption differently in the second image, seeing the word “fanatical” as identifying a group within the group rather than describing the whole. Like “an average Muslim won’t kill you for it, but the fanatical ones will, so best not to show an image.” Maybe wishfu/optimistic interpretation.
Christianity does not have a tenet forbidding the depiction of religious figure, well, besides the no graven images thing
Which, I don’t think anyone actually pays close attention to anyway
Isn’t that the same tenet, it’s just interpreted differently? That is Christians historically treating it as idols dedicated to other deities, with inconsistent although not completely absent application to Christian figures (like IIRC one Protestant grievance against Catholics had to do with their use of idols, particularly idols of saints).
It also has to be said that Islam is not unique nor monolithic in terms of how rigidly its followers adhere to its tenets nor even what those tenets are assumed to mean, and historically Muslim depictions of Muhammad in religious art did happen and were accepted in some places and at some times. The modern extremeness of the issue is a combination of the unusually hardline and extreme interpretation pushed by Saudi Arabia - which US intelligence has helped it export globally because salafist militants both tend to do the sort of reactionary violence that furthers American interests and have provided a casual pretext for the US to roll in and start occupying whomever it pleases whenever it pleases - and the fact that it’s basically just a racist airhorn used by blowhards who want to say “I hate you and hold you in complete contempt, so I’m publicly thumbing my nose at you and daring you to try something” in a way that invites retaliation from aggrieved and impulsive young men who already feel disaffected and targeted by racism.
I’m pretty sure you can find historical examples of paintings of Muhammad online like right now. There’s also plenty that just hide his face behind a ball of light surrounded by his companions who all look the same so it’s fair to guess what the artist would have put there if not for the iconoclasm.
A lot of the paintings are really cool. There’s been debate and speculation among art historians about Islamic art influencing the Renaissance. Different painting techniques could have originated in the Middle East before getting exported back to Europe during the Crusades.
One piece of evidence for this is with etching. The etching of metal was first used by Arabs to mark their equipment so if they died, their stuff could be taken back to their families. Europeans learned of this technique and applied it to metal plates. Copper is much more durable than woodblocks and you can make more copies before the master gets damaged or destroyed. This led to more effective printing because crews could work faster not worrying about damaging their tools.
Damn that is so cool. The cultural and technological exchange part of history is always the most fascinating part.
This is the full picture, thank you for elaborating
It’s important to note that while Christians largely interpret the iconoclasm differently, they do still have hard and fast rules that clash with contemporary culture, and are cited by extremists as justification for acts of terror and murder. The fact that those extremists are largely seen as aberrations while Muslim extremists are seen as inherent to the faith is the result of islamophobic bigotry
This is only tangentially related, but now I’m imagining a bunch of America first chuds assaulting people who wear American flag print clothing bacause it’s a flag code violation.
Thank you for going into detail on this
I was just speaking as a guy who paid close attention in Sunday school and has an interest in destroying Mormonism
Fuckin’ White Pharoah
Just to add to what she said, Eastern Orthodox Christians have an interesting rule where they allow flat icons only. Statues are prohibited because they’re too close to the real form of the objects they represent. They also tend to take on a more abstract style with their icons, while Catholic icons have a more realistic style that I believe later influenced romanticism.
It’s the same, but christianity abandoned it entirely because without pictures, figures etc it would not be much attractive for potential pagan converts. Some orthodox tried to return to it later, but failed and were declared heretics (look iconoclasm). To be fair a lot of muslims also don’t give a shit, some denominations officially, some not.
Not even all Muslims do.
The Christians had a big fight about it as well. It’s pretty obvious who won.
Yep, the Mormons
Though they did have the advantage of the magic submarine Jesus used to come to the Americas
Why did Jesus need magic to get to the Americas if the Lost Tribes of Israel had already made the journey without magic? What now, momos?
Don’t tempt the wrath of the white pharoah
Yeah my question isn’t why is an image of him offensive. Since they’ve actually made the choice not to break that tenet in this meme, my question is why is it more offensive to reference Mohammed in the second panel than it is to actually have a picture of Jesus in the first image. Seems like an equal critique of both Christianity and Islam, so I don’t know why one is worse, but all the comments are just about the rule barring images of Mohammed.
Christians are being called ‘annoying’, Muslims are being called ‘fanatical murderers’. In what way is that an “equal critique”?
Yeah that feels obvious now lol. For whatever reason I was focused only on the caption of the first meme and just saw the second as racking on one more group rather than reading into the caption. But I read the word “fanatical” as identifying a group within the group rather than describing the whole. Like “an average Muslim won’t kill you for it, but the fanatical ones will.” Maybe wishful interpretation.