Top Seller in Muslim World

[pym]

Mr. Snakey, I merely pointed out that Muslim is not a race but a religion, how is that attacking someone's religion?

And how is it religious or gay bashing to point out the irony of a gay man who defends a religion that jails, tortures and kills gays?

If you do not have the intellect to interpret my arguments correctly perhaps you should consider hanging up your moderator hat.

Hey Pokey! What the fuck happened to you? You are nothing like i remember you being back in the 60's man.......You and Gumby and the blockheads. I hope you have multiple log-in identities here, as so many do. I'm pretty sure time is running out for POKEY.

 

[str8up8x6]

That is strange. You are wrong, str8up8X6. THE ONION declared that this was indeed the HOTTEST new video game developed by Allen "AL"Kaider for the Ji-Hodx video game consoles .

No, that was the Ramadan toy the Onion is talking about, I was talking about the New Year's toy. No conflict there.

 

[AllHazzardi]

I don't think the situation you've described is comparable.

For one thing, Christians have been more successful at pushing their religion onto other cultures than Muslims, and so Christianity is more geo-diverse.

But more to the point, the cover of the box includes references to a six-year-old wife with a traditional Arabic name, and also contains a transliteration of the Arabic word 'halal' -- the target of the bigotry wasn't merely the practitioners of a religion, but the Arabic practitioners of that religion.

Furthermore, the Mohammed character is dark and swarthy with a beard, but he's depicted in a sexual position with a blonde-haired woman, which is another artistic choice that convinces me that the motivation behind this hoax is more racial than religious.

I don't find any of the racial elements I described in the artwork you linked to, so no, Calboner, I wouldn't consider your link to be racist.

You know, I'm planning on depicting the inauguration of the new president in an image. I figure he'd look good if he looked like Arnold Schwarzeneggar tearing his shirt off to look like a scene from Eraser. Complete with guys shooting at him as he dives off the stage to protect his wife, Marilyn Monroe.

The point I'm making is that if you are creating a piece of artwork, especially one that is comedic or a hoax, it wouldn't have value if you didn't represent the situation. If anything, if the prophet were depicted as a NON-ARABIAN, it'd be far more insulting. Step out of your ethnocentric views on racism and examine from an objective view.

"6 Year old" in our culture is an insult, but as far as the time period involved, it wasn't.
An Arabic word on a box just adds to the illusion, do you think they should write in Afrikaans, Chinese, or Japanese instead?
And pray, if the artist is depicting Muhammad the Prophet, it wouldn't make any sense if he was blue.

You can make an image that is a joke about a particular religion, depict the traditional stereotypical image of the traditional practitioners, without it becoming targeted at a race.

To add to this, you speak of Christianity as if, because it's more successful, a joke or prod at it is more acceptable than a joke or prod at Muslim. Last I checked, aren't the big components of racism Prejudice and Discrimination? Isn't considering it more insulting or insinuating racism based on which religion it's targeting a pretty clear cut definition of Prejudice? Isn't treating others differently because they find it funny Discrimination?

 

[mindseye]

I'm not sure why you bumped this weeks-old thread for this, but I'd say you've missed the point completely. I'm not even sure where to begin responding to what you've said.

I claim that the joke is racist, and you defend the use of an Arabic word on the box by saying, well, what'd you expect -- Japanese? I point out the difference in the depictions of the sexual aggressor and the sexual aggressee, and you say -- well, yeah, the Prophet was an Arab. The fact that the racism is depicted consistently doesn't make the picture less racist.

I agree with your assessment that the elements of the box are mutually consistent with one another; I stand by my belief that, taken as a whole, the 'joke' is racist.

 

[AllHazzardi]

I'm not sure why you bumped this weeks-old thread for this, but I'd say you've missed the point completely. I'm not even sure where to begin responding to what you've said.

I claim that the joke is racist, and you defend the use of an Arabic word on the box by saying, well, what'd you expect -- Japanese? I point out the difference in the depictions of the sexual aggressor and the sexual aggressee, and you say -- well, yeah, the Prophet was an Arab. The fact that the racism is depicted consistently doesn't make the picture less racist.

I agree with your assessment that the elements of the box are mutually consistent with one another; I stand by my belief that, taken as a whole, the 'joke' is racist.

Each comment is solely targeting your claim that the joke is racist. You claim it is racist because it depicts culturally relevant imagery which matches the target religion. I say it's not racist because if you were making a mockery of Obama in artistic form, you wouldn't be using an Austrian man for Obama, a white celebrity woman for his wife, and there wouldn't be a hail of gunfire that didn't actually happen. You would probably use someone who appears to be a mixed blood individual of African, Asian, and Caucasian, if not a hyperbole of appearance.


So, as it can be said simply.

You say it's racist because it uses Arabic based imagery in a joke about Muslim.
I say it isn't racist because Muslim is culturally Arabic and that is the fitting imagery for the joke.

 

[B_Nick4444]

many of you know I am no admirer of Islam

that being said, I really see no humour in the posting

I also see no reason to censor the OP

 

[vince]

If you are going to argue semantics, bigoted maybe a better word than racist. I find people often use 'racist' when 'bigot' would fit better.

 

[mindseye]

You say it's racist because it uses Arabic based imagery in a joke about Muslim.

No. That's not what I've said.

It's not just that the image of Mohammed is Arabic. It's also that the image of the victim is white. If you don't see how a depiction of a middle eastern man raping a white woman isn't racist, I can't help you.

Had the woman been depicted differently, the 'joke' would still have been offensive and tasteless, but the racist connotations wouldn't have been as pronounced.

 

[D_Adoniah Sheervolume]

oh brother.

i'm a fag mindseye, and even i say grow a sense of humor...

 

[FantomX]

HAHAHA!!! Good one wowniceone!

 

[AllHazzardi]

No. That's not what I've said.

It's not just that the image of Mohammed is Arabic. It's also that the image of the victim is white. If you don't see how a depiction of a middle eastern man raping a white woman isn't racist, I can't help you.

Had the woman been depicted differently, the 'joke' would still have been offensive and tasteless, but the racist connotations wouldn't have been as pronounced.

Not quite sure where you drew rape from, looks to me more like missionary. After all, she is one of his wives(*). Additionally, the individual's "skin" color as it would have it, is no different from the girl beneath him, so either he's white, or she's Arabic.

*Not necessarily willingly, but that's how things went in that time period

 

[mindseye]

You're really grasping now. How do you get that 'rape' and 'missionary' are incompatible?

How do you conclude that the woman depicted on the box is his wife?

How do you reconcile 'not necessarily willingly' with not being rape?

If you're granting the possibility that 'he's white', doesn't your entire argument fall flat?

You're in over your head and grasping for straws now.

oh brother.

i'm a fag mindseye, and even i say grow a sense of humor...

Already explained here. But race aside, what's funny about mocking other people's beliefs?

 

[bearonwry]

I looked at the image and found nothing offensive.
I mean it may be distasteful but it's just pointing out how offensive that culture is to most peoples of the world.
Men brutalize women in the Middle East.
Have you read about the girls that had acid thrown at them just because they were going to school?

 

[AllHazzardi]

You're really grasping now. How do you get that 'rape' and 'missionary' are incompatible?

How do you conclude that the woman depicted on the box is his wife?

How do you reconcile 'not necessarily willingly' with not being rape?

If you're granting the possibility that 'he's white', doesn't your entire argument fall flat?

You're in over your head and grasping for straws now.



Already explained here. But race aside, what's funny about mocking other people's beliefs?

Ah, fear my straws you think I am so grasping for, for they shall suck like no other straws ever pulled.

One by one:

1.You're really grasping now. How do you get that 'rape' and 'missionary' are incompatible?

Not that they are incompatible, but that one(Missionary position visible) does not necessarily mean the other(Rape). This is your assumption based on no information whatsoever. Is she screaming for help? Does she look to be in pain? There is only your choice of perception that the depicted act is rape. It could by all means be a consensual coupling given the information shown, however you ASSUME it is rape.

2. How do you conclude that the woman depicted on the box is his wife?

Well, given that it's the "Lego Muhammad" play-set which mentions that it "Includes 23 wives, including 6 year old Aysha" and appears to be a lego-man intended to depict Muhammad on what appears to be a bed with a woman makes it pretty good odds it's one of his wives. Of course it COULD be a mistress, but that doesn't exactly make it rape. If it were an unwilling coupling, I imagine it would have mentioned something about rape on the cover. After all, it'd sell like hotcakes, people love that sort of stuff. Else, may I ask, how do you conclude that the woman depicted is NOT one of his wives?

3. How do you reconcile 'not necessarily willingly' with not being rape?

Because I was referring to the marriage, not the act of coupling. In the old days, marriages were arranged and brides were essentially paid for(which side pays for the woman is more based on the cultural roots). So she may be his wife, not necessarily willingly, but that does not make the act rape.

4. If you're granting the possibility that 'he's white', doesn't your entire argument fall flat?

No, because the statement that was made is that, since they have the same skin tone, EITHER of the following would have to be true:

A) The woman is white, and as we know whites have much paler skin than those of Arabic lineage, he must be white too.
B) The woman is Arabic, since we know that the lego-man in the picture is intended to be Muhammad, and she has the same skin tone as him.

Situation A does not mesh, as the man in question is intended to be Muhammad, which we know as a particular lineage.
Since situation A cannot be true, given we know the man in question IS intended to be Muhammad, therefore cannot be white, we are left with only situation B.

5. You're in over your head and grasping for straws now.

Fear my straws, for they are powerful.


In closing, I must ask, in your reasoning, it is an act of rape because it is an Arabic man over a White woman, with other references to Arabic. Does cross-racial coitus mean rape?

What other basis do you have to support the statement that this is a depiction of rape?

 

[mindseye]

Sooooo... you're inferring from the text on the box that the woman depicted is a wife of his (and that because she's made from the same color plastic that she must also be Arabic); you're inferring that because the cover of the box didn't mention rape that the sex wasn't consensual. But you've also conceded that other interpretations are possible (e.g., where you write, "it COULD be a mistress").

But your argument is based on statements like, "It could by all means be a consensual coupling given the information shown, however you ASSUME it is rape." Actually, I'm not assuming it's rape, I'm inferring it.

So, what I'm getting from you is:

• You're making inferences about the artwork.
• You concede that other inferences may be valid.
• But you object that my inference is less valid than yours.

Got it. You bumped a weeks-old thread for that?

 

[AllHazzardi]

Sooooo... you're inferring from the text on the box that the woman depicted is a wife of his (and that because she's made from the same color plastic that she must also be Arabic); you're inferring that because the cover of the box didn't mention rape that the sex wasn't consensual. But you've also conceded that other interpretations are possible (e.g., where you write, "it COULD be a mistress").

But your argument is based on statements like, "It could by all means be a consensual coupling given the information shown, however you ASSUME it is rape." Actually, I'm not assuming it's rape, I'm inferring it.

So, what I'm getting from you is:

• You're making inferences about the artwork.
• You concede that other inferences may be valid.
• But you object that my inference is less valid than yours.

Got it. You bumped a weeks-old thread for that?

Inferences they may be, but inferences which are actually based on the information presented.

The difference between assume and infer is simple.
An inference is based on information that is known to be true, and valid to the inference.
An assumption is based on information which is either not relevant to the situation, or that is not known to be true, or that is invalid to the statement being made.

I infer it is a wife because this fictional set includes 23 wives, and appears to be depicting Muhammad mid-coitus with a woman.

I do not infer it is rape because the only information presented in common with a scenario of rape is the act of sex. This is not a very substantial connection. In fact, the act of sex is often in common with many many many other possible situations. You know, like sky diving.

So as I asked, what is your reasoning to say this is depicting rape and NOT a consensual act?



Oh, and just so you can lay it to rest, the reason I pulled up a weeks-old thread is because I felt like adding a post to it.

 

[Calboner]

If you are going to argue semantics, bigoted maybe a better word than racist. I find people often use 'racist' when 'bigot' would fit better.

Thank you for that, Vince. It drives me up a wall when people go throwing the word 'racist' at any speech that they think is unjust or even simply unfavorable toward some national or ethnic group, even when race has nothing to do with it.

 

[B_spiker067]

,.

 

[mindseye]

Thank you for that, Vince. It drives me up a wall when people go throwing the word 'racist' at any speech that they think is unjust or even simply unfavorable toward some national or ethnic group, even when race has nothing to do with it.

You've made this assertion before, and I still disagree with it.

"Islam" is a world-wide religion, and is the dominant religion in places as far from the Middle East as Somalia and Malaysia. All of the elements on the box, from the appearance of the Mohammed lego to the word "halal" specifically targetedMiddle Eastern Muslims.

Race may not have been the primary target of the joke, but it's unfair to say that race "has nothing to do" with it.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

And the results are:
AllHazzardi One
mindseye Nil

And kudos to
str8up8x6
the OP for posting.