[Closed] Whose great idea was it to have a Mohammed cartoon competition?

I suppose if the idea was to flush out some Muslim extremists so you can shoot them.....then it's been pretty successful!

Odd how feedom of expression can be turned into a reason to go shooting the participants.

Whose great idea was it to have a Mohammed cartoon competition?

It was the brainchild of a woman called Pamela Geller. She runs a blog called "Atlas Shrugs", which pretty much guarantees that she can make her head revolve.

She has already accused the Daily Mail of "cowardice" and called it an "enemedia" for blacking out some of the brilliant freedom of expression that was going on when the drawing competition was interrupted. 😕

I'd imagine the victims of the Charlie Hebdo shootings are turning in their graves. They were out to mock on an equal footing with every other belief, these people were just out to specifically antagonise and single group of people. One has intelligence, the other is moronic.

There's freedom of speech, and there's deliberately winding people up. The law ensures the former, common decency should inhibit the latter.

There's freedom of speech, and there's deliberately winding people up. The law ensures the former, common decency should inhibit the latter.

I can't help but think that in the scheme of things, shooting at people is a far, far worse thing to do and is in no way an appropriate response to "winding people up".

I hope you didn't think I was condoning the shooting of people?

I can't help but think that in the scheme of things

All absolutely solid thoughts, no one disagrees.

However, this event was put on with the absolutely transparent intention of provoking some muslims somewhere to violence in furtherance of the wider cultural war that elements of the US right are determined to wage against the country's muslims. These people will be absolutely delighted that their little event was actually attacked by actual maniacs - the best they'll have been hoping for is a mob outside a US embassy somewhere burning flags.

Getting up somewhere in public and "winding up" some out-group in the hope they'll do something stupid, so you can clobber them is all well and good as a thuggish political tactic, but it doesn't happen on the moral high ground.

Anyone fancy a trip to Texas to organise a 'Jokes about Jesus' comedy festival? I think it would go down really well.

And what's wrong with provoking people? Sometimes thoroughly stupid rules need challenging. This has nothing to do with Islam. This and a lot of other rules Muslims claim they have to live by are nothing to do with Islam itself, its about bearded old farts who impose their beliefs and interpretations onto others and should be challenged at every opportunity, especially in the context of the ideals and values of our society - If you're in the Middle East, then you shouldn't be drawing Cartoons of Mohammed. If you're in the UK then you are perfectly entitled to draw whatever you like and nothing should prevent you from doing so. Respect and understanding works both ways. These extremists will kill whatever, they will use any old excuse they like, whatever we do will prevent them from killing.

colournoise - Member
Anyone fancy a trip to Texas to organise a 'Jokes about Jesus' comedy festival? I think it would go down really well.

Shame Lennon is dead, he'd have loved that... 🙂

I think it's possible to simultaneously disapprove of intentionally offending people for no other reason than you don't like their religion and you're an arsehole, but also disapprove of shooting people for it. That's the trouble with real life, there's not always a goodie and a baddie.

I think it's possible to simultaneously disapprove of intentionally offending people for no other reason than you don't like their religion and you're an arsehole, but also disapprove of shooting people for it. That's the trouble with real life, there's not always a goodie and a baddie.

Well said.

molgrips - Member
There's freedom of speech, and there's deliberately winding people up.

And as you well know, human nature ensures we can't have one without the other.

true but some times there are a bunch of people who should only be allowed to express their free speech inside a soundproof room.

Yes, very inconvenient, freedom, isn't it?
🙂

As a species, we seem unable to cope with it.

So some right wing crazies hold a Mohammad drawing competition, so the only people who see these cartoons are right wing crazies.

Then some other even further ring wing crazies come along to shoot them for doing so. They get shot themselves.

Seems like a pretty good result. 2 less very right wing crazies, who are willing to massacre people in cold blood because of a cartoon.

And what's wrong with provoking people?

For the overwhelming majority of people who get on fine with their muslim neighbours, friends and colleagues and never need to draw mohamed, the problem with provoking people is the resultant acrimony, nastiness and tedium.

Obviously, no-one should be such a cry-baby prick that they make a fuss about people drawing pictures. But as no one except deranged culture-war trolls seems to need to draw mohamed anyway, the whole farrago could just be avoided by not drawing him.

If someone was threatening death on anyone who drew an exploded diagram of a flat-pack bookcase or a pictorial guide to identifying baby robins (or other useful thing I need someone to draw) I could get behind a campaign to harass, intimidate and ghettoise them and make them feel unwelcome in their own country. The mohamed thing, not so much.

I think it's possible to simultaneously disapprove of intentionally offending people for no other reason than you don't like their religion and you're an arsehole, but also disapprove of shooting people for it. That's the trouble with real life, there's not always a goodie and a baddie.

Well said.

+1

See, it has the opposite effect on me.

I've never drawn a picture of Big Mo in my life - but the bleating and insistence on special treatment by the religious (of any stripe) makes me want to get the spray cans out.

Freedom you're scared to excercise isn't freedom.

So if this Pamela Geller is OK with freedom of speech events then I suppose that she would be all for someone holding a 'F### The USA' event?

Crazy world!

If someone was threatening death on anyone who drew an exploded diagram of a flat-pack bookcase or a pictorial guide to identifying baby robins (or other useful thing I need someone to draw) I could get behind a campaign to harass, intimidate and ghettoise them and make them feel unwelcome in their own country.

Dunno, if it meant never having to go back to Ikea I could probably come round to the idea.

she would be all for someone holding a 'F### The USA' event?

She obviously wouldn't. However, she would probably display her disapproval on a blog or an interview on Fox News, maybe a placard or two with some shouting.

She wouldn't go and get her Glock and start shooting people.

Big difference.

Freedom you're scared to excercise isn't freedom.

In the list of "Reasons I don't usually draw mohamed", fear comes so far behind "pointless", "never needed a picture of him" and "tiny courtesy to people who apparently care about that sort of thing" that it barely warrants a mention.

Besides, does anyone really, honestly think the biggest problem with islam is their (theologically disputed) prohibition on drawing the prophet?

She wouldn't go and get her Glock and start shooting people.

She wouldn't go and get her Glock and start shooting people.

I bet one of her sympathisers would though.

2 less psychotic killers = result! Shirley 😉

Besides, does anyone really, honestly think the biggest problem with islam is their (theologically disputed) prohibition on drawing the prophet?

It's a perfect example of the religous insisting their beliefs have greater validity than those of the non-religious.

Its not really RS its just a bit of respect

Look at this way they cannot make us go to mosque or dress the way they do and we just dont draw pics of their prophet.

In a push comes to shove yes we[ secular laws] trump them but this is just deliberately provoking them for no real gain that I can see*.

FWIW they take the commandment of no craven images/idols to extreme and they cannot draw anything made by God and Mohammed is the most haram of this.

As noted who really feels repressed because of the absence of a mohammed themed cartoon in their life?

* I am not defending the shooting of people

If I lived in the Texan Muslim community, I would be glad that 2 far right wing extremists no longer lived with me.

What do I win?
[img] [/img]

Rusty Spanner - Member

Freedom you're scared to excercise isn't freedom.

Freedom to offend should be balanced out by consideration for your fellow human beings. It obviously isn't.

I'm not sure that most muslims who're upset by these things are demanding special treatment. They're obviously demanding particular treatment, but it doesn't follow that they think they're the only ones who should have it. If I say don't spit in my pint, it doesn't follow that I think it's fine if you spit in everyone else's pint; I'm only defending my pint because it's my pint. Earthman, your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

You can spit in Mohammed's pint though. He wasn't drinking it anyway.

The right to cause offence will always supersede the so called respect for religion no matter how unpleasant the offenders' are. This is fundamental to freedom of speech. I for one would feel 'upset' without a cartoon image of Mohammad in my life as I would one of Jesus Buddah Moses the president of America or Margaret Thatcher. Please carrying causing offence and feel free to disagree with me and offend as you feel the need.

Have to wonder why it is that cartoons depicting muslims are publicized widely through the media, yet when similar cartoons mocking the jewish faith are produced, they are labelled anti semitic and the publishers punished.

Reminds me of that experiment where monkeys are treated unequally, which is proven to stir tensions.

Almost as if the media are complicit in trying to provoke extremist reactions...

The right to cause offence will always supersede the so called respect for religion no matter how unpleasant the offenders' are. This is fundamental to freedom of speech

There is no right to behave like a **** and it is not essential for freedom of speech

There may be times when someones personal opinions causes offence but to personally set out just and only to cause offence is somewhat sad
The example I always give is

I can stand outside a church and hurl abuse at the bride, call her fat, ugly a bit of a slag whatever, None of this is really a right or essentially to my freedom of expression, Furthermore if i were to do this I would expect to be hit quite often [ though I am not saying this is right either]
If you want to defend this as right and just and an essential part of free speech then knock yourself out and await someone returning the favour 😉

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be a **** though in exercising free speech you may offend someone but that is not the same as deliberately trying to offend someone.

Well that is what the UK has decided. In the U.S., this is not the case. Have you not heard of the westboro baptist church? Or the American nazis?
In the U.S., freedom of speech means that, there is no provision for stopping due to perceived offense.

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be a **** though in exercising free speech you may offend someone but that is not the same as deliberately trying to offend someone.

I'm with carbonfiend with this one.

Freedom of speech means freedom to offend. As a gay bloke I have had tons of abuse (especially from religious nutters) but it's their right to say what they want, as long as they don't come after me with big sticks.

As Stephen Fry said:

[img] [/img]

I think there is a difference between saying something which may offend some people and deliberately going out of your way to be an arsehole.

The organisers and attendees at this gunfight (all 200 of them, wow impressive eh?) in my opinion fall into the arsehole category.

I hope it turns out to be a pair of white christians who decided to shoot the place up.

I hope it turns out to be a pair of white christians who decided to shoot the place up.

Why?

What has the colour of their skin got to do with anything?

She obviously wouldn't. However, she would probably display her disapproval on a blog or an interview on Fox News, maybe a placard or two with some shouting.

It is interesting that the American Muslim haterz publicised that they had "heavy security" for this event - it's almost as if they expected something to happen...

[i]yet when similar cartoons mocking the jewish faith are produced, they are labelled anti semitic and the publishers punished.[/i]

There is a very effective Jewish Lobby that is well co-ordinated and quick to react, the same doesn't exist in the Islamic world.

yet when similar cartoons mocking the jewish faith are produced, they are labelled anti semitic and the publishers punished.

There is a very effective Jewish Lobby that is well co-ordinated and quick to react, the same doesn't exist in the Islamic world

The Islamic world does react but they tend not to use the due legal process

We wouldn't even know this event took place if two people hadn't turned up with guns with the sole aim of murder, let's not loose sight of that. Those organising sound pretty unpleasant and obviously were looking for the reaction that doesn't justify the response or that we should live in fear of the response or even worse apologise for it, be it punch or a gun. It is fundamental to free speech just like all those who preceded us fighting for right of expression & identity. As Christopher Hitchens says not in my name.

yet when similar cartoons mocking the jewish faith are produced, they are labelled anti semitic and the publishers punished.

Can you point me to any of these cartoons that mock the Jewish [u]faith[/u] being labelled as such?

I've seen plenty that are targeted at stereorypical carachteristics of Jews as a [u]race[/u] but not really noticed any targeted at their [u]faith[/u]

On a slight tangent, how much does an image have to look like the prophet for it to be offensive?
I mean if I present this -
[img] [/img]and say it's my abstraction of the prophet, will it cause offence?

Here you go ninfan:

[img] [/img]

just to show I hold no bias:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Bear in mind, only one of the 3 was an officially produced cover that was distributed by the publishers...

I don't see the problem.

It's Merica the home of the free and it's their home, they can have massive shoot out party zombie style if they wish, do whatever they like ...

[b]Remember guns don't kill people do.[/b]

Now what are the price for Glock 29, Bennelli M4, Ruger mini-30 and Tavor SAR nowadays?

🙄

JHJ - I think you proved my point, nobody seems to have been up in arms calling anyone anti-Semitic for publishing that picture (a parody of the CH one I believe)

pretty sure charly hebdo sacked one of it's staff some years ago after he was accused of anti-semitism

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9 ]You're right[/url] scaredypants

It appears ninfan can't read...

Bear in mind, only one of the 3 was an officially produced cover that was distributed by the publishers...

That said, I don't really think it's right to mock anyone's beliefs, even if it does seem a bit silly to believe in old stories about different flavours of space ghosts.

But the disparity by the media is worrying, as it suggests there is a larger bias at work by those presenting us with information as fact...

Have to wonder why it is that cartoons depicting muslims are publicized widely through the media,

Really? I've got the impression the mainstream media hasn't published any of the cartoons. As already said, we wouldn't have heard about this Texas convention had a couple of lunatics not thought that the appropriate response to a cartoon was a firearm.

how much does an image have to look like the prophet for it to be offensive?

[url= http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/01/economist-explains-12 ]This is quite measured on the issue[/url].

The problem is representation tending towards idolatry. Your purple rectangle is fine, as there is clearly no real sense in which it is a representation of the prophet and no risk of it getting between people and god.

Although presumably if you pushed it you'd get problems because claiming that the prophet was a purple rectangle was felt to be blasphemous.

🙂

Theres free speech, then there's naivety.

Holding an event which will of course bring friction with it, and then leaving unarmed security officers as the only form of protection. Who thought that through?

Didnt the organisers tweet that 'The War Has Begun' after the shooting

its almost like they wanted to incite violence.........

The US group was being deliberately confrontational as they are perfectly entitled to do so under US law.

No one got shot for drawing a picture of a Rabi or of God. You are not entitled to shoot someone for drawing a picture of Mohammed in any Western society.

Laws exist to protect religious freedom, there was nothing stopping an Islamist organisation bringing a legal action against Charlie Ebdo. As a matter of fact Charlie Ebdo has said it won't draw Mohammed again, as a side effect of the attack the financial future of the agazine has been assured as they now have around 15 millions euros in the bank and have paid out some 3-4 million to the families of the murdered cartoonists.

EDIT:

That said, I don't really think it's right to mock anyone's beliefs

I hope it turns out to be a pair of white christians who decided to shoot the place up.

Freedom of speech means freedom to offend.

So if I printed homophobic lies about you on the front page of a national newspaper, and encouraged shopkeepers to not serve you because you're gay, you'd be ok with that?

So if I printed homophobic lies about you on the front page of a national newspaper, and encouraged shopkeepers to not serve you because you're gay, you'd be ok with that?

@ransos - we had similar laws re religion but they where repealed as I posted earlier. Homophobic laws remain in place.

Libel and homophobia laws curtail freedom of speech.

Once again this x1000:

I think it's possible to simultaneously disapprove of intentionally offending people for no other reason than you don't like their religion and you're an arsehole, but also disapprove of shooting people for it. That's the trouble with real life, there's not always a goodie and a baddie.

However it does strike me that [url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/04/why-a-woman-named-pamela-geller-organized-a-prophet-muhammad-cartoon-contest/ ]Pamella Geller[/url] was probably hoping for just such a disproportionate reaction. if extremists had managed to just ignore her and and brushed off her activities as those of an opinionated Housewife trying to stir up some Rednecks, then I'm sure given time her popularity would have dropped off and the [i]"American Freedom Defense Initiative"[/i] would have disappeared... As it is one branch of Free speech based [i]Extremism[/i], leads to further retaliatory violent [i]Extremism[/i]...

The vast majority of humanity manage to remain moderate and proportionate in their use of free of speech, it's those with extreme views who espouse hatred looking for a reaction to confirm their world view and then hide behind their right to free speech who manage to balls it up for the rest of us... IMO.

@ransos

So if I printed homophobic lies about you on the front page of a national newspaper, and encouraged shopkeepers to not serve you because you're gay, you'd be ok with that?

If they were [b]lies about me[/b] that would be libel and I would have access to the courts for reparation. Remember that the eejits in Texas were not attacking a [b]person[/b] they were attacking an [b]idea[/b]. My views/beliefs are not sacrosanct. If someone wishes to challenge them fine, I may even change my mind. Same for everyone else.

Attacking a person (muslim/christian/atheist/gay/white/black etc.) is wrong.
Attacking an idea (religious/political etc.) is not wrong. There should never be a belief that cannot be criticized, regardless of how much a person believes in it. If you're offended by your [i]belief[/i] being criticized then I point back up to Stephen Fry's article: tough, stop whining, support it with facts.

And yes - that has already been done many many many times, in my lifetime (attacking gay people), including loss of jobs at interviews and comments from people around me. I slap down personal attacks but if someone says "I don't like the gays" then I think they are an idiot and ignore them.

If they were lies about me that would be libel and I would have access to the courts for reparation.

Attacking a person (muslim/christian/atheist/gay/white/black etc.) is wrong.

Which curtails freedom of speech.

An interesting aside from a US-based lawyer on this specific issue. There are only a few areas in the US that 'free speech' is curtailed.

[url= http://popehat.com/2015/05/04/unusually-stupid-mcclatchy-column-gets-free-speech-wrong/ ]popehat[/url]

(To your response: no, libel doesn't curtail free speech, it just makes [in the UK] someone justify their statements or be held liable, and the 'attacking...' part is my personal belief, which again does not curtail free speech but there may be laws in different countries which apply).

(To your response: no, libel doesn't curtail free speech, it just makes [in the UK] someone justify their statements or be held liable, and the 'attacking...' part is my personal belief, which again does not curtail free speech but there may be laws in different countries which apply).

Libel curtails free speech: you can't print anything you like without consequences.

Free speech is advanced in threads like this as an argument which trumps all others, yet those who advance it seem reluctant to acknowledge that we already restrict free speech. The debate is what those restrictions should be, and how far they should go.

There should never be a belief that cannot be criticized, regardless of how much a person believes in it

It is not the same thing

As for free speech how far would you let someone promote the sexual abuse of children in pursuit of free speech? Rape ?Hate preaching? Advice on bomb making. All of these freedoms of speech are curtailed.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute it has to be weighed against other things

Libel curtails free speech: you can't print anything you like without consequences.

Your point, caller? Free speech means you can say what you like, having to deal with the consequences of it are another issue. Something milder: "All 29" wheel owners are idiots!" Does someone reacting to that with something like "No, you're being horrible!" mean my free speech is curtailed? All libel is doing is involving lawyers. The *threat* of lawyers can cause self-censorship, but that's another area.

The thing in the states about the cartoons *is* extremely well-defined in their first amendment. No ifs, no buts, a very narrow view of what isn't protected free speech. In the UK there are laws that curtail free speech in certain areas, I agree that's the truth. On this issue though, I'm with the US and [b]my[/b] line is "Don't attack people (unless they deserve it - Jimmy Saville anyone?) but ideas - go for it, I don't care."

Your point, caller? Free speech means you can say what you like, having to deal with the consequences of it are another issue.

Well no, because serious consequences limit what people are prepared to say. In practice, it is a curtailment.

You can criticise the idea that not drawing cartoons of the prophet is stupid , idiotic, and unenforceable.

Agreed. You can agree with any idea. Or disagree. Up to you.

What you are arguing is the freedom to do the thing rather than to criticise the thing.

If you mean 'doing the thing' means "Drawing an image of a religious icon" then yes, I do advocate those that want to do it should do so. Else some other person will say something like "Criticising 29ers is OK, but if you make a sign or something like a statue criticizing 29ers then that's wrong."

For example if you didn't like the government of the day and say so fine, but 'doing the thing' and organising a protest is wrong?

It is not the same thing

It is - writing something about an idea is the same as saying it. In this case it was drawing something.

As for free speech how far would you let someone promote the sexual abuse of children in pursuit of free speech?

That's incitement - not even the US allow that. But full marks at the [i]trying to make me out as a child rape supporter[/i] routine. Come on JY, you're a better man than that. 🙁

Rape ?

Incitement. Though look at "50 shades of grey" which many feminists have stated is a book about abuse not about a consenting BDSM relationship. I haven't read but I'll take their word for it. On literotica there are stories about non-consent. If you were to say, however, "I'm going to rape person X" then that is a threat which is not protected here.

Hate preaching?

In the UK that is against the law. In the US it is not (see: Westboro nutters).

Advice on bomb making.

I'm a chemist, don't need to know that. Already know it, but it would be messy and I'd end up dead due to bad skillz. You'll easy find that on the internet, along with how to make an atomic bomb. Again in the US it is free speech, but I guess the police keep a keen eye out. I was taught the structure and rough outline of semtex explosives at college. Should that be banned?

All of these freedoms of speech are curtailed.

In different countries there are different rules. I'm mainly talking about the subject, the US shootings.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute it has to be weighed against other things.

That's very vague JY. "other things" What other things? Someone getting offended about religion? How about someone getting offended about breastfeeding? How about someone getting offended about politics?

Yes, freedom of speech has to be weighed against harm to others BUT the moment we start saying "you can't say X as it has offended Y and Y may then kill/hurt someone" then the list gets bigger and bigger until you can't say anything.

I suggest you read the popehat link. It is very interesting. He's a pro-bono lawyer who deals with all sorts of stuff.

Your turn to answer now:

Do you support banning/curtailing free speech:

For religions (e.g. criticism of christianity/islam/buddhism etc.) also known as blasphemy, such as in this case where idiots drew some cartoons of someone who either didn't exist or died a long long time ago?
For criticising the ruling monarch?
For criticising the ruling goverment?
For criticising 29" wheels?
For certain political doctrines (any, whatever you fancy).

not even the US allow that. But full marks at the trying to make me out as a child rape supporter routine. Come on JY, you're a better man than that.

I suggest you read the popehat link.

For religions (e.g. criticism of christianity/islam/buddhism etc.) also known as blasphemy, such as in this case where idiots drew some cartoons of someone who either didn't exist or died a long long time ago?

For criticising the ruling monarch?

For criticising the ruling goverment?

For criticising 29" wheels?

For certain political doctrines (any, whatever you fancy).

Freedom of speech is not without limits is my only point and one can legitimately expect certain things For example it is reasonable for some to object to homosexuality but you also have the right to live free from abuse. We have to balance these. We cannot just stop them ever speaking out nor let them preach hate. We strike a balance

[url= http://popehat.com/2015/05/04/unusually-stupid-mcclatchy-column-gets-free-speech-wrong/ ]Here's[/url] the link. Remember it is a US site for US laws. He's just done a really good discussion about US copyright trolls 'Prenda Law' and their attempts to extort people out of money by claiming they'd downloaded pr0n.

The problem I have is that being offended is something you choose to be not something that someone gives you. I would imagine that most muslims regarding the cartoon thing just shrugged their shoulders and thought "Useless tossers!". The word 'offended' has got too much power. Unfortunately with the 'rednecks' in the states the power of free speech cuts both ways. Perhaps they are offended by being called rednecks. Dunno, but in the same way they can draw images of the religious icon their opposites can draw pictures of Ayn Rand being a communist or something.

The problem with a "legitimate" criticism of, say, Christianity (to take the islam out of it) is that person A could say "I don't think Jesus existed or that if he was he was actually God personified." This, in my view, is a legitimate criticism, especially if backed up with some facts. If the pope, say, then got really offended by it do we then backpedal? In Islam that Mohammed chappie took on a child bride. This gets a lot of flack with some people calling him the p-word. As a result some Muslims are furious about that. Should that be banned?

I think we can all agree that the universal law should be "Don't be a dick". Unfortunately people on all sides continue to be so and therefore some laws have to be fixed down. I disagree with the people drawing cartoons but I believe they do have the right to do so; other people ("artists") have done things like Piss-Christ (I think it's a crucifix in a jar of urine - oh [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ ]here[/url] it is on wikipedia and I would guess some from other religions). If everyone just ignored them they would go away. It is a bit like those threads where people would deliberately wind up TJ then sit back and watch the fireworks.

And I'm thinking 650b for my next bike!

The problem I have is that being offended is something you choose to be not something that someone gives you.

Piss christ is interesting - i think it looks rather lovely tbh and not obvious what the medium is which gives it a totaly different meaning IMHO- but I am struggling to defend it as it seems overly insulting to those of faiths, Like with the cartoons its easy enough to criticise religion without resorting to a piss christ. Mrs JY is an artist she would say freedom of expression all the way

650 B - insert offensive joke about deviants here 😉

will read the link later and comment

Tactless ****ing inflammatory moronic ****s

read the link it accepts there are limits so all we have to do now is discuss where we draw the line

IME I have yet to meet anyone who literally thinks anything goes with free speech , it does have limits even in the US

I tend to not disagree with the assessment and article and I guess the test here [ within US law]is the reasonable person in the streets reaction to the cartoons and it would pass [probably even amongst reasonable Muslims].