• Rania 🇩🇿English
        33·
        3 months ago

        In Islam he’s another prophet, and Muslims believe Jesus will return in the final days. But they don’t consider him a God or the son of God, so no “what will Jesus think of this” because he’s not the one that they believe is the judge

      • REEEEvolutionEnglish
        11·
        3 months ago

        I me Mekka, two graves are prepared and left empty for centuries. One is for the Mahdi, one is for Jesus when he returns to heaven.

      • anarchoilluminati [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        I think there’s a misunderstanding somewhere but I do know Muslims who give a shit about Jesus’s position and doctrine.

        As others said, he is considered a prophet, and different Muslims may place more or less importance on him, but by virtue of being a prophet in Islam they can care very much about his position and doctrine. Yes, they don’t consider Jesus to be God Incarnate but, outside of the Fourth Gospel, it wasn’t Jesus’s position either. So they actually mostly accept and believe in the Gospels, particularly the Synoptic ones. Some even believe in the Virgin Birth. Jesus’s Divinity is not really relevant to most of his teachings. So you can say, and I know Muslims who say, that they “believe in Jesus.”

        • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          right but that’s all church mosque-nerd shit isn’t it? there are hundreds of characters in the stories and your average day to day adherent pays no mind to jeremiah, while an apologist or preacher will cite chapter and verse rather than thinking he was a bullfrog.

          and I know Muslims who say, that they “believe in Jesus.”

          so does bart erhman. i don’t think nominally believing in a historical or supporting-actor jesus (and phrasing it that way in the face of hegemonic christianity) puts you in the jesus “fanbase” as is meant by the .world dipshit meme

          • anarchoilluminati [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            Nah, I don’t think it’s nerd shit. You can say that there are hundreds of characters but there are still not many characters who are at the same level of significance or who had as impactful a teaching.

            And, yeah, it doesn’t obviously put them in the fundamentalist evangelical base that the meme is referring to but that wasn’t my point. My point was to reply to what you said about not knowing or hearing about any Muslim who gave a shit about Jesus’s position or doctrine, but now you also say that you had already heard about Muslims that do say they believe in Jesus through Bart Erhman so I guess you were being rhetorical.

  • thelastaxolotl [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    301·
    3 months ago

    We used to have an islamophobic reddit heritage but thankfully a struggle session later we purge it, i dont think the lemmitors will do what needs to be done

        • thelastaxolotl [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          19·
          3 months ago

          Nah, i posted a dunktank post abou r/europe posting a drawing of muhammad and 3-5 people acted like reddit atheists over how its the muslims fault for getting mad and one of them becoming a sitemod but eventually a muslim user used the post to show how the new sitemod was a bigot and he got sitebanned

  • Please_Do_Not@lemm.eeEnglish
    11·
    3 months ago

    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?

    • WorkingClassCorpse [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      42·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • TechnoUnionTypeBeat [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        42·
        3 months ago

        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

        • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          28·
          3 months ago

          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.

      • Please_Do_Not@lemm.eeEnglish
        3·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
          5·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • Please_Do_Not@lemm.eeEnglish
            3·
            3 months ago

            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.

        • WorkingClassCorpse [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          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

          • Please_Do_Not@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            3 months ago

            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.

    • FlakesBongler [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      26·
      3 months ago

      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

      • KobaCumTribute [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        27·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • WorkingClassCorpse [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
          16·
          3 months ago

          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

          • heggs_bayer [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
            9·
            3 months ago

            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.

        • GrouchyGrouse [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          15·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            7·
            3 months ago

            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.

        • FlakesBongler [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          12·
          3 months ago

          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

          • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            17·
            3 months ago

            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.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMindEnglish
          6·
          3 months ago

          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.

      • regul [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        17·
        3 months ago

        Not even all Muslims do.

        The Christians had a big fight about it as well. It’s pretty obvious who won.

      • Please_Do_Not@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • WorkingClassCorpse [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          his fanatical followers will literally murder you for showing a picture

          Christians are being called ‘annoying’, Muslims are being called ‘fanatical murderers’. In what way is that an “equal critique”?

          • Please_Do_Not@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            3 months ago

            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.