Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Syed Demanding

"drawmohammed.com" Is Hacked!

Recommended Posts

I was thinking "Draw Lars Vilks day" with a MAGNIFICENT image in mind where the man is roasted in hell. . (If you know which buttons to push westeners are more sensitive than muslims)

But disrespecting the jews like that is a no-no. I understand the point of the group but the jews are innocent in all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you are missing the point of the group. Its not for disrespecting jews, its for exposing the Wests double standards on so called ''Freedom of speech''.

(salam)

With all do respect, there may be a double standard in Europe, but as far as I understand, there is no such double standard in the US (at least legally, I obviously can't speak for all or even most individuals), as drawing such pictures would be totally protected by freedom of speech. Also, although I respect your right to do as you wish, please reconsider stooping to the level of those who are causing this distress in the first place. I believe creating hateful images would be contrary to Islamic akhlaq and the example set by our role models, the holy prophet (pbuh) and his ahl al bayt (as).

One area freedom of speech won't protect though are perceived threats, so if you do decide to create material that is (at least on the surface) hateful (regardless of greater intent) try to make sure nothing you create can be perceived as threatening.

(wasalam)

Edited by sherwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you are missing the point of the group. Its not for disrespecting jews, its for exposing the Wests double standards on so called ''Freedom of speech''.

Does it disrespect Jews? Yes. Stop making them victims for your own justice. A lot of people were gruesomely tortured and killed in the holocaust, stop using it to make your point. You're like a bunch of give year olds; the same point cold be made simply by stating that it offends us just as holocaust mockery and denial offends the Jews. Why make a mockery of the innocent to meet your end is beyond me. You are pathetic.

Edited by Psychopath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ''Lets draw holocaust'' group is not going to one where depicting pictures of dead jews are going to be drawn. Its a group with pictures that show how the holocaust is being used as a pretext for the occupation of Palestine. The title might sound misleading, but the content isnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^It wouldn't say '30th June 2010' if they didn't actually intend to draw these pictures, genius.

Yes, pictures about how the holocaust is being used to kill your Muslim brothers in Palestine.

http://www.irancartoon.com/120/holocaust/

This was frrom a competition recently. Tell me if you find any offensive cartoons there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just that, it's also the fact that it is predominantly white Westerners who have gone out of their way to offend Muslims, so the logical retaliation is against white Westerners. Pictures of Palestinians getting brutalised is hardly going to hit them where it hurts. If anything, they will derive satisfaction from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

It doesn't matter that frowning upon 'drawmuhammadday' makes us 'look bad' infront of certain people, because I take it the drawings themselves would anger Allah(swt). So people who condemn certain actions so that they don't 'look bad' infront of creatures of this world can never be successful in the long term. (agreeing that life is but a pilgrimage)

(So basically, looking 'bad' for doing the right thing(protesting against this event) should not be an issue for the common shi3a.

However, I agree on the language thing but I applaud the person who took time & energy to actually protest, not just in their hearts (that is the protest of hypocrites most of the time) but also by actions (though they didn't choose the super right thing to do. It still proves their clear disapproval of this event)

Happy? yes/no? I've got laundry to do AND I was guna keep my postcount at 200.........

Sis, many people disagree with this event, but showing disapproval (even when it is done in an inappropriate or ineffective manner) is not always Islamic or noble. Those Muslims at the Lars Vilks movie were all showing disapproval too- do you find their behavior any less revolting? I agree that looking bad for doing the right thing should not be an issue at all, but looking bad for doing the counterproductive, irrational thing should. Why are our forms of protest always unconventional? Why are they always sloppy, illiterate, counterproductive, violent, and illegal? Let us assume that it is the West and its media that portrays them to be such (which i disagree with) we should then contemplate why they are so ineffective and often counterproductive.

We simply cannot expect not to be offended. All people have to adhere to the laws of their country, and the laws now often involve secular freedoms, which results in people doing and saying a lot that displeases Allah. They aren't Muslim. Islam tells us not to draw the Prophet, not to insult him, not the insult the faith, etc- it does not tell the whole of Western Europe and the United States to refrain as well in a show of solidarity. If we want civil discourse, we have to stop taking the bait. Part of free speech includes the very distasteful people on drawmohammad, lars vilks (whose entire audience and fame was made up of Muslims) and the likes of shiasoldier.

The idea that showing disapproval, no matter how ineffective or negative the methods, is inherently an Islamic thing to do.. well it is part of the problem.

Provided that this doesn't break any of fb's rules- you are absolutely right about practicing your freedom of speech. Like I said before, freedom of speech doesn't always have to be intelligent, not offensive, or even relevant to the discussion at hand. Will you look particularly bright? No, but surprise, surprise.

The ''Lets draw holocaust'' group is not going to one where depicting pictures of dead jews are going to be drawn. Its a group with pictures that show how the holocaust is being used as a pretext for the occupation of Palestine. The title might sound misleading, but the content isnt.

Similarly, drawmohammed.com is a website that aims to address free speech. We can all veil crude, hateful attacks under the guise of noble sentiments- but we both know this is utter nonsense. Want proof? Check the content that you cited.

It's not just that, it's also the fact that it is predominantly white Westerners who have gone out of their way to offend Muslims, so the logical retaliation is against white Westerners. Pictures of Palestinians getting brutalised is hardly going to hit them where it hurts. If anything, they will derive satisfaction from it.

Excellent point, but how do you reconcile your logical statement with the well established fact that the Jews are behind everything? Hmmmmmm?

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just plain stupid. What on earth will you gain from hacking such a website? No one will give a cent about how the message is presented since the underlining fact remains that this site was unnecessarily hacked. When will people understand that such reactions only ever fuel this type of behavior? It ALWAYS holds true. We are well within our right to react, but we should express ourselves through appropriate channels if we cannot get ourselves to simply ignore morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are getting a bit off topic here due to the face book group shiasoldier786 posted up... you just have to understand the context it. Back to the OP I don't see what benefits it brought by hacking the site but oh well at least there wasn't any swearing on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking "Draw Lars Vilks day" with a MAGNIFICENT image in mind where the man is roasted in hell. . (If you know which buttons to push westeners are more sensitive than muslims)

But disrespecting the jews like that is a no-no. I understand the point of the group but the jews are innocent in all of this.

Lol draw a guy who muslims already attacked in hell, because westerners drew your prophet! Brilliant!!

and why not blame the jews? the jews are always the root cause of the problem ;)

you all have clearly missed the point of draw Mohammed day... It was to show that the western world will not silence itself or censor itself just because some religious nut jobs say they should

Christianity already tried this and it didn't go so well for them people are constantly making jesus jokes(Even on tv! holy Sh*t!) and calling the pope and catholics pedophiles. The main point being freedom of speech will not be stopped by a religion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

I think people are getting a bit off topic here due to the face book group shiasoldier786 posted up... you just have to understand the context it. Back to the OP I don't see what benefits it brought by hacking the site but oh well at least there wasn't any swearing on it.

I think he did an excellent job of demonstrating the irony behind his own outrage and the outrage of other like minded Muslims (most certainly not all of us), which is why I don't think it is off topic at all. This isn't the first, nor will it be the last "Muslim" group on facebook that is just downright distasteful and offensive. Feeling noble and divinely guided when you are just driven by ignorance and hatred? That is a pretty unfortunate combination.

Barking back at dogs is pretty pointless. The prophet was a person who went to see an old woman out of concern one day because one day she didn't throw garbage at him, and yet we have people justifying this because they think this type of behavior is what the Prophet taught us- to ineffectively bark back for the sake of barking. All this behavior does is bring the Prophet's name to disgrace and make a mockery of it. If only we condemned these people and their behavior as passionately as we condemn these cartoons :dry:

you all have clearly missed the point of draw Mohammed day... It was to show that the western world will not silence itself or censor itself just because some religious nut jobs say they should

Christianity already tried this and it didn't go so well for them people are constantly making jesus jokes(Even on tv! holy Sh*t!) and calling the pope and catholics pedophiles. The main point being freedom of speech will not be stopped by a religion!

Oh spare me the "fight for free speech" line. The women who's cartoon started all this said "fight for the right to draw Mohammed, but then refuse to do so."

The point of draw Mohammad day is to be offensive, ignorant, and incite a reaction from Muslims. Congrats- all goals were accomplished.

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are getting a bit off topic here due to the face book group shiasoldier786 posted up... you just have to understand the context it. Back to the OP I don't see what benefits it brought by hacking the site but oh well at least there wasn't any swearing on it.

I don't think anyone here misunderstood it or the context, it is simple to understand and it is a simplistic angle to take.

Edited by Psychopath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the attention guys; its certainly given the group a lot of publicity, and new fans. :D

Fact is, no matter how polite and courteous we be with the Kaffir dogs who disrespect our beloved Prophet (SAWS), it wont change much. They are spiritually deaf, dumb and blind, and May the wrath of Allah (swt) be upon them both in this world, and the hereafter. As Hassan Nasrallah once said; if any Muslim were to implement the fatwa of Imam Khomeini (ra) against Rushdie, nobody would have dared to insult the Holy Prophet (SAWS) again.

Anyways, nobody quite understood the purpose of the Facebook group. It isnt about the Holocaust or disrespecting jews, its to see what the reaction of those who advocate Freedom of Speech so much is, when a group from within them feels insulted with our "free speech". Is it stooping down to their level? No, its called proving a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

Thanks for all the attention guys; its certainly given the group a lot of publicity, and new fans. :D

Fact is, no matter how polite and courteous we be with the Kaffir dogs who disrespect our beloved Prophet (SAWS), it wont change much. They are spiritually deaf, dumb and blind, and May the wrath of Allah (swt) be upon them both in this world, and the hereafter. As Hassan Nasrallah once said; if any Muslim were to implement the fatwa of Imam Khomeini (ra) against Rushdie, nobody would have dared to insult the Holy Prophet (SAWS) again.

Anyways, nobody quite understood the purpose of the Facebook group. It isnt about the Holocaust or disrespecting jews, its to see what the reaction of those who advocate Freedom of Speech so much is, when a group from within them feels insulted with our "free speech". Is it stooping down to their level? No, its called proving a point.

You seem to be the one who doesn't quite understand the point of this whole free speech debate if you think that fb page disproves anything. No one is saying you can't insult the holocaust or Jews, feel free to do so- you are well within your free speech rights to claim it didn't happen, etc. Naturally people will find it offensive, just as Muslims find it offensive when you insult the Prophet. Freedom of speech doesn't stop when people are offended, freedom of speech stops when you hack a website, kill an author, silence people, or through some other unconventional form of activity that actually halt free speech. Your nonsense point aside, don't you feel it is immature and unIslamic to behave in this manner? Don't you find your own slurs, hateful, vitriolic rhetoric, and lack of thoughtfulness dishonor your "beloved" Prophet more than any cartoon by a non-Muslim ever could? Remember, we are Muslims.. we follow the example of our Prophet and his conduct? Not the words of Hassan Nasrallah- a fallible political leader who will say counterproductive, shortsighted things to rally a very select crowd of people.

As for the Hassan Nasrallah quote, we have killed people like Rushdie before and it has not silenced every author, artist, and film maker in the world. Shocker. I see plenty of deaf, dumb, and blind here- and it isn't coming from the "kaffir dogs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think those who are actually interested in this for the purpose of free speech (and some of them are) would not mind any offensive cartoons about the Holocaust or any other topic dear to their hearts.

For example, consider this film made about Salman Rushdie. It was originally banned in the UK, but Rushdie himself asked for the ban to be removed, that is, he sincerely believed in supporting free speech. For many in the West concerned with preserving free speech, they welcome even the material most offensive to them (granted, I doubt Rushdie was actually offended by the ridiculous film). Whether this notion of preserving free speech is a good thing or a bad thing is of course up to each individual to decide for themselves, though I think someone who truly supports free speech would not censor anything for fear of offending any person or group.

In short if you truly support free speech you welcome the material that you find most heinous and repugnant to be printed and distributed (to those interested; one should have a right to avoid reading or seeing the objectionable material)*. That said, I'm not trying to advocate that one should or should not support free speech; that's a personal decision.

* One can make exceptions for material produced using methods that are criminal. That is films that required criminal activity to be made in the first place (such as films in which a human was killed or an animal was abused in order to be made); one could make an argument against pornography using this logic as well on the grounds that it's oppressive for those featured in such films, although I'm not sure how strong such an argument would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I think there is a fine line between freedom of speech and freedom of insults. No one can argue that everyone has the right to insult whoever they want. What seems to be the issue is that people can never come to an agreement on what is classified as offensive and what is not. I for instance, don't think drawing cartoons of prophet is in itself offensive.. but when you draw a bomb as his turban then yeah, it offends me. However, evidently the majority of muslims find the act of drawing the prophet offensive...and no one can convince them otherwise. Free speech advocates should draw the line, where only a minority is offended by an act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For many in the West concerned with preserving free speech, they welcome even the material most offensive to them (granted, I doubt Rushdie was actually offended by the ridiculous film).

Disagree.

The people of the west are not offended by what the people of the east consider offensive.

However, when you've been raised in the west, you know what offends these people, and to really put this idea of freedom of speech to the test, I wish someone to be brave enough to take a step and try offending them. An honest shot..no cheap shot like 'draw the holocaust etc.' People couldn't care less about holocaust, it is nothing but an industry to generate support for the (ILLEGAL) state of israel.

So Mr. Rushie & the advocates of freedom of speech haven't seen offensive, and muslims in the west act like big goons within their little ghetto but automatically take on the 'victim' role when admist westeners, otherwise this whole ridiculous 'freedom of speech' idea would have been buried 6 feet under.

Here's an idea: Do you want try freedom of speech? draw the day of judgement as graphic as you can, depicting every scene as brutal as possible. Give... gee, I don't know.. Mr. Rushie the lead role. Watch your reactions.

Please note that it is also possible to make animations & vector 3D drawings today, just to improve the cartoons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I think there is a fine line between freedom of speech and freedom of insults. No one can argue that everyone has the right to insult whoever they want. What seems to be the issue is that people can never come to an agreement on what is classified as offensive and what is not. I for instance, don't think drawing cartoons of prophet is in itself offensive.. but when you draw a bomb as his turban then yeah, it offends me. However, evidently the majority of muslims find the act of drawing the prophet offensive...and no one can convince them otherwise. Free speech advocates should draw the line, where only a minority is offended by an act.

Hells naws, the line should have absolutely nothing to do with numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What then? You will ALWAYS find people who find a certain act offensive.

Let them, who cares?

And if you do care, it shouldn't be based on numbers, there has to be a set defined and obvious line. That is not an easy thing to achieve. Also if you think about it, I would be more concerned if one individual was offended rather than a whole group. Poor guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I think there is a fine line between freedom of speech and freedom of insults. No one can argue that everyone has the right to insult whoever they want. What seems to be the issue is that people can never come to an agreement on what is classified as offensive and what is not. I for instance, don't think drawing cartoons of prophet is in itself offensive.. but when you draw a bomb as his turban then yeah, it offends me. However, evidently the majority of muslims find the act of drawing the prophet offensive...and no one can convince them otherwise. Free speech advocates should draw the line, where only a minority is offended by an act.

While I respect your opinion on the matter, and will agree to disagree if there is indeed a difference of opinion, I recall that in high school in the US (you can call it brainwashing if you want, but this isn't necessarily part of the standard curriculum) we were taught that freedom of speech included the freedom to insult without restriction (but only in certain venues, for example, you're not allowed to say whatever you want in school or in the workplace). Granted it's also your right to choose to not be exposed to insulting or offensive material; that is, you are allowed to create material that many would consider extremely insulting or offensive, so long that it's in a venue where people would have the right to not be expose to it (or cease to exposed to it, if exposed to it by chance). Examples would be in books or other print media or in websites. I doubt you can go in the middle of a public square and blast offensive speech with loud volume. I'm also not sure if you can put very offensive material on billboards that would be in plain sight while driving.

The idea is by being liberal with all sorts of worthless, profane, or obscene material that you allow to be freely disseminated, you have a virtual guarantee that when you want to disseminate material that is important to you, it won't be censored (at least in practice), even if others perceive it as worthless, profane, or obscene.

Once again, I'm not trying to convince anyone that this is "the/a right" approach to freedom of speech (nor necessarily "a wrong" approach), I do think many perceive freedom of speech as I've outlined above. And yes, I realize that "many" is a rather weak word (perhaps a weasel word).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Fair enough.. but that approach eliminates morality.

Let them, who cares?

And if you do care, it shouldn't be based on numbers, there has to be a set defined and obvious line. That is not an easy thing to achieve. Also if you think about it, I would be more concerned if one individual was offended rather than a whole group. Poor guy.

lol

No matter where you draw the line, you are offending a bunch of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering someone else's web domain is their property, it doesn't seem like it would be permissible. If you view the burning or destruction of offensive books (that you haven't purchased) as permissible -- or worse yet, you agree with the bombing of bookstores carrying such books, as such things occurred during The Satanic Verses controversy (and I would guess that like myself you don't agree with such behavior), you could make a claim that hacking would be permissible as well. In fact, since hacking is likely more reversable, it's less extreme than burning copies of an unpurchased book -- and far less extreme than bombing a bookstore.

I agree with Kadhim that this is not a cause of rejoice. In fact this whole "event" is basically an attempt at baiting, and even if a few muslims fall for the bait, the entire ummah comes off looking bad, once more. Allah knows best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I respect your opinion on the matter, and will agree to disagree if there is indeed a difference of opinion, I recall that in high school in the US (you can call it brainwashing if you want, but this isn't necessarily part of the standard curriculum) we were taught that freedom of speech included the freedom to insult without restriction (but only in certain venues, for example, you're not allowed to say whatever you want in school or in the workplace).

That's not quite true, freedom of speech has never been an unrestricted freedom to insult. A basic example would be defamation laws, which exist everywhere including in the US. Or hate speech which is outlawed in most Western countries. Some Western countries also still have blasphemy laws in place (the UK only abolished their blasphemy laws 2 years ago).

A distinction is often made between freedom of speech (intended to have some benefit [promote the discovery of truth, restrict the power of government etc etc] or fulfill some non-hateful purpose) and the freedom to insult/vilify/incite hatred for no reason and without any substance. Freedom of speech cannot be absolute (I don't think anyone actually argues for that) and the latter is often (rightfully so imo) outlawed. For example, in many Western jurisdictions you'll find legislation to this effect:

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1991 - SECT 124A

124A Vilification on grounds of race, religion, sexuality or gender identity unlawful

(1) A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race, religion, sexuality or gender identity of the person or members of the group.

(2) Subsection (1) does not make unlawful--

(a) the publication of a fair report of a public act mentioned in subsection (1); or

(B) the publication of material in circumstances in which the publication would be subject to a defence of absolute privilege in proceedings for defamation; or

© a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including public discussion or debate about, and expositions of, any act or matter.

While I don't entirely agree with this particular legislation and I think it's drafted a little poorly, it gets the basic point across that you cannot have unrestricted freedom to insult.

Edited by ~RuQaYaH~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam.gif

That's not quite true, freedom of speech has never been an unrestricted freedom to insult. A basic example would be defamation laws, which exist everywhere including in the US. Or hate speech which is outlawed in most Western countries. Some Western countries also still have blasphemy laws in place (the UK only abolished their blasphemy laws 2 years ago).

A distinction is often made between freedom of speech (intended to have some benefit [promote the discovery of truth, restrict the power of government etc etc] or fulfill some non-hateful purpose) and the freedom to insult/vilify/incite hatred for no reason and without any substance. Freedom of speech cannot be absolute (I don't think anyone actually argues for that) and the latter is often (rightfully so imo) outlawed. For example, in many Western jurisdictions you'll find legislation to this effect:

While I don't entirely agree with this particular legislation and I think it's drafted a little poorly, it gets the basic point across that you cannot have unrestricted freedom to insult.

I don't think we have anything in the US quite like that Queensland act. Though I will add that hateful speech that could be constituted as harassment is not protected by free speech. Also, I found this on Wikipedia (in relation to free speech and hate speech in the United States):

Restrictions on hate speech have been generally overturned by the courts; such speech cannot be targeted for its content but may be targeted in other ways, if it involves speech beyond the First Amendment's protection like incitement to immediate violence or defamation.

Moreover, I'm pretty sure you can write pretty much any book you want (in the US) as long as it doesn't slander anyone or plagiarize another book and you'd be okay. There are other exceptions however, as an interesting case study, see this: http://en.wikipedia..../Hit_Man_manual

Once again, I want to make it clear that I'm just discussing facts and I hope I don't come across as argumentative. There are sometimes myths about free speech being more limited than it really is (at least in the US), this may be due in part to the fact that some other western countries still have (or until recently, had) anti-blasphemy laws (that are rarely, if ever enforced), and due to the fact that Holocaust denial is actually criminal in some countries.

Of course, if I'm wrong, I'd like to know. : )

Edited by Al-Asr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh cmon, isnt this pathetic, does this not do more harm than good? If they decide to mock the prophet, let them, but just dont take it seriously, the reason it got so popular is because muslims actually CARE! they arent doing this to jesus, or buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh cmon, isnt this pathetic, does this not do more harm than good? If they decide to mock the prophet, let them, but just dont take it seriously, the reason it got so popular is because muslims actually CARE! they arent doing this to jesus, or buddha

What they did was still correct. As you said, its because Muslims care! They have to care. They just put an end to something that is against Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think so. People have a right to do this. A right to offend. However, I dont think they should have went to this extent, it would be much more smart for muslims to merely ignore the haters. If they had done such, no one would even do anything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...