NationStates Jolt Archive

Good on the Danes.

Edit: MY thread now! MWAHAHAHAHA

In response to the Danish security services foiling an alleged plot to assassinate the artist behind one of the Mohammed cartoons (the one with the bomb-turban), newspapers across Europe are reprinting the cartoons to demonstrate their dedication to free speech and their disgust at a plot to kill an innocent seventy-three year old.

Danish newspapers today reprinted a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad, a day after three people were arrested for allegedly plotting to kill the man who drew it.

When the image was originally printed by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper as part of a series of 12 in 2005, it sparked global protests and violent demonstrations in Muslim countries.

The newspaper reprinted the cartoon today, saying it wanted to show its commitment to freedom of speech after yesterday's arrests.

Several other newspapers, including Politiken, Berlingske Tidende and the Ekstra Bladet tabloid also decided to run the picture, which shows the prophet wearing a turban shaped like a bomb.

At least three newspapers in Sweden, Holland and Spain also reprinted the cartoon as part of their reporting of the Danish arrests.

"We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper will always defend," Berlingske Tidende, based in Copenhagen, said.

An editorial in Politiken said the paper was printing the cartoon in support of Jyllands-Posten.

"Regardless of whether Jyllands-Posten at the time used freedom of speech unwisely and with damaging consequences, the paper deserves unconditional solidarity when it is threatened with terror," the editorial said.

A spokesman for the Danish foreign ministry said its embassies worldwide were monitoring the situation for any indications of unrest related to the reprinting of the cartoon.

Danish Muslim leaders said reprinting the caricature was the wrong way to protest, while the leader of the Islamic Faith Community - the group that led demonstrations in Copenhagen in 2006 - said it was considering a rally outside parliament.

Danish intelligence services said they had arrested three suspects yesterday "to prevent a terror-related assassination of one of the cartoonists".

The three - a Dane of Moroccan origin and two Tunisians - were detained after a pre-dawn raid near Aarhus, in the west of the country. The raid followed a prolonged surveillance operation by intelligence services.

Officials said the Danish citizen, aged 40, was released yesterday after questioning, while the two Tunisians will be deported as a security threat.

The suspects' intended target was alleged to be Kurt Westergaard, a 73-year-old illustrator with Jyllands-Posten. His drawing of Muhammad wearing the bomb-shaped turban was regarded as the most offensive by Muslims.

Westergaard and the cartoonists who drew other images in the series are said to have been under police protection for several months.

Islamic law opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favourable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/13/muhammadcartoons)

The Danish press is showing true commitment to freedom of speech, and even papers who declined to publish the cartoons last time have decided to show demonstrate their rejection of censorship and intimidation:

I spoke to Lisbeth Knudsen, the chief editor of Berlingske Tidende, a centre-right broadsheet and one of the biggest and most influential papers in Denmark. Berlingske Tidende abstained from printing the cartoons last time around, but not this time. I asked her why they have changed their position. She said:

"What happened yesterday is awful and something we must all oppose. It is completely unacceptable that someone plans to murder a cartoonist that uses his freedom of expression. I would hope that not only a united Danish press, but, indeed, a united international press chooses to print the cartoon in question to show defiance and get the message through that we will not tolerate this."

It is, however, not only the centre-right papers that feel this way, Bent Winther, co-chief editor of the liberal broadsheet Information, last night told me:

"Information chose not to print the cartoons first time around. Back then we felt that they were a clear provocation against the Muslim community, not so this time though. People have been plotting to kill an innocent 73-year-old man. This is completely unacceptable."

Source (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jakob_illeborg/2008/02/the_prophet_cartoon_crisis_part_two.html)

This comes at a particularly significant time for the UK as we're on the brink of abolishing blasphemy as a criminal offence. I hope at least one British newspaper demonstrates their commitment to freedom of speech, but I doubt any of them have the guts.

Of course, showing no fear and moar flamebaiting is quite similar.

Meh,...I'll just have to put my palm on my face.

Oh, no. Not this shit again...

Hmmm. I guess I should dig up the smiley shirt...

http://www.shopmetrospy.com/cNcgraphics/Product_361_PrSpare2.jpg

:rolleyes::rolleyes: you sometimes sicken me

What? That I support freedom of speech? My supporting of freedom of speech sickens you?

Good on the Danes.

Edit: MY thread now! MWAHAHAHAHA

:rolleyes::rolleyes: you sometimes sicken me

In response to the Danish security services foiling an alleged plot to assassinate the artist behind one of the Mohammed cartoons (the one with the bomb-turban), newspapers across Europe are reprinting the cartoons to demonstrate their dedication to free speech and their disgust at a plot to kill an innocent seventy-three year old.

Oh, their dedication to free speech? OK, let's see them print up a lot of swastikas.

What? That I support freedom of speech? My supporting of freedom of speech sickens you?

you know whats gonna happen: arabs get pissed, more attacks in europe, refusal to sell oil to the danes, you guys get that instead, AQ has more rhetoric and possibly more followers, they are just adding fuel to the flame, i support freedom of speech, but when it is sensible, for example, if they put swatski and spoke about Mein Kampf, and the guy got attacked what would your response have been? i thought you to be more sensible *sighs*

The Danish press is showing true commitment to freedom of speech, and even papers who declined to publish the cartoons last time have decided to show demonstrate their rejection of censorship and intimidation


they are really asking for it arent they? doesnt matter if it is freedom of speech or not, all theyre doing is pissing of their oil having people, making them turn to russia, who will capitilise, on the plus side that means more oil for the US, possibly preventing the recession

Good on the Danes.

Edit: MY thread now! MWAHAHAHAHA

Damn you!!! :D

Yes, flamebaiting. Which is why newspapers from across the political spectrum who previously declined to print the cartoons are doing so now...

Ah, wouldn't that provoke more terror actions? This kind of terrorism state of mind can't be stopped with words/images. Either I'm oblivious to why the show solidarity in an provoking way, or I'm oblivious to the actual intentions of the publishers.

I see no good can come out of this.

Of course, showing no fear and moar flamebaiting is quite similar.

Meh,...I'll just have to put my palm on my face.

Yes, flamebaiting. Which is why newspapers from across the political spectrum who previously declined to print the cartoons are doing so now...

Oh, their dedication to free speech? OK, let's see them print up a lot of swastikas.

This is relevant how exactly? Try looking at the context:

-An attempt is made to murder an innocent 73 year old, thereby intimidating cartoonists and publishers, and attempting to dissuade them from publishing 'blasphemous' cartoons in the future.
-Newspapers defy thugs by printing the cartoons that the thugs were trying to censor.

This is different from just publishing swastikas for the hell of it (although I support their right to do so if they want to).

Besides, have you even looked at the cartoons? Half of them are poking fun at the cartoonists for heaven's sake, they're not even close to implicit support for mass-murder...

Props to the Danes! :D

Because you made the claim that European newspapers are dedicated to free speech. If so, why are there certain glaring, unopposed restrictions on their expression of said "free" speech?



Yes, yes. This is about as heartwarming to me as tales of how, after 9/11 in our country, people came together for Good Things. Like buying some new diamonds, or perhaps hating and fearing Muslims.

I'm just never sold on this whole, War On Terror/Islam idea and I am not about to get emotional on command because some newspapers aren't giving in to a particular threat. Certainly not about "freedom of speech" or "freedom" for that matter.



I haven't looked at the cartoons, and it doesn't really matter. And really, this is more about how the cartoonists now feel safe cuz the police bailed one of them out. "Nyah, nyah, we have police protection!" Doesn't impress me.


Do you think its OK for them to blow up embassys?

This is relevant how exactly?

Because you made the claim that European newspapers are dedicated to free speech. If so, why are there certain glaring, unopposed restrictions on their expression of said "free" speech?

Try looking at the context:

-An attempt is made to murder an innocent 73 year old, thereby intimidating cartoonists and publishers, and attempting to dissuade them from publishing 'blasphemous' cartoons in the future.
-Newspapers defy thugs by printing the cartoons that the thugs were trying to censor.

This is different from just publishing swastikas for the hell of it (although I support their right to do so if they want to).

Yes, yes. This is about as heartwarming to me as tales of how, after 9/11 in our country, people came together for Good Things. Like buying some new diamonds, or perhaps hating and fearing Muslims.

I'm just never sold on this whole, War On Terror/Islam idea and I am not about to get emotional on command because some newspapers aren't giving in to a particular threat. Certainly not about "freedom of speech" or "freedom" for that matter.

Besides, have you even looked at the cartoons? Half of them are poking fun at the cartoonists for heaven's sake, they're not even close to implicit support for mass-murder...

I haven't looked at the cartoons, and it doesn't really matter. And really, this is more about how the cartoonists now feel safe cuz the police bailed one of them out. "Nyah, nyah, we have police protection!" Doesn't impress me.

Oh, their dedication to free speech? OK, let's see them print up a lot of swastikas.

If it was related to an article in any way, there would be no problem with printing swastikas. I have seen it many times, especially when it was related to the scandal with prince Harry.

Do you think its OK for them to blow up embassys?

For who to blow up what? How in the world is this relevant to a single thing I've said?

Bloody good. I can only hope this pisses off sufficient numbers of Muslims so as to create another disorder from which they emerge unfavourably.

What's this meant to achieve anyway?

"We can print what we want" ?

Wow, because they didn't know that already.

Oh, their dedication to free speech? OK, let's see them print up a lot of swastikas.

When one lacks a real argument, GODWIN!

Bloody good. I can only hope this pisses off sufficient numbers of Muslims so as to create another disorder from which they emerge unfavourably.

Well, one honestly shouldn't look at the person or their actions, to decide whether or not their religion is unfavourable or not. All you have to do with Islam is read about its basic belief system, and you will realize how stinky it is.

Props to the Danes! :D

you i dont expect to think ahead

Indeed: if you have no real argument, you just say "GODWIN" like some faulty javascript program. Really, what do you think this adds to the thread, saying "GODWIN" like that?

Swastikas are an example of how a European nation (Germany, but maybe others, I'd have to look that up now) are not so zealously committed to freedom of speech as has been claimed. It's a valid point, in response to a point made in the thread.


I don't see how its a valid point in the slightest:

"Germany is not completely committed to freedom of speech, therefore the Newspapers shouldn't be allowed to print the cartoons". Please point out where any sort of argument is formed in that?

Well, one honestly shouldn't look at the person or their actions, to decide whether or not their religion is unfavourable or not. All you have to do with Islam is read about its basic belief system, and you will realize how stinky it is.

:rolleyes:, and here i thought that the ebil moslem haters were a minority, do you know how i found out about nationstates? my friends told me they went on it a couple of times and were scared about the number of poeple like you who say this about them

Bloody good. I can only hope this pisses off sufficient numbers of Muslims so as to create another disorder from which they emerge unfavourably.

you are a silly poster, and i thank the high heavens, that i will never meet you in person.

you know whats gonna happen: arabs get pissed, more attacks in europe, refusal to sell oil to the danes, you guys get that instead, AQ has more rhetoric and possibly more followers, they are just adding fuel to the flame, i support freedom of speech, but when it is sensible, for example, if they put swatski and spoke about Mein Kampf, and the guy got attacked what would your response have been? i thought you to be more sensible *sighs*

So basically, "Hey, they're going to use violence against you, so just bend over and smile?"

they are really asking for it arent they? doesnt matter if it is freedom of speech or not, all theyre doing is pissing of their oil having people, making them turn to russia, who will capitilise, on the plus side that means more oil for the US, possibly preventing the recession

Ohhhh, so as long as we don't piss off anyone, freedom of speech is ok, but if we do, we are "asking for it".

When one lacks a real argument, GODWIN!How does Godwin's law turn that into an irrelevant argument?

So basically, "Hey, they're going to use violence against you, so just bend over and smile?" they caught them didnt they? put them on trial for attempted murder and be done with it, you dont have to go "nah nah, you cant do anything "

When one lacks a real argument, GODWIN!

Indeed: if you have no real argument, you just say "GODWIN" like some faulty javascript program. Really, what do you think this adds to the thread, saying "GODWIN" like that?

Swastikas are an example of how a European nation (Germany, but maybe others, I'd have to look that up now) are not so zealously committed to freedom of speech as has been claimed. It's a valid point, in response to a point made in the thread.

What's the point of "GODWIN?" Yeah, you know how to say "GODWIN." How fucking impressive. Really, that ended the thread right there.

Well, this is a brilliant move. I'm glad that someone is finally thinking. See when 3 people of a particular persuasion attempt a heinous act, you capture and punish them. But you need to prevent this in the future, so you have to go further. So what you do is you insult everyone "like them". Sure it's bigotry and nonsense, but as long as we paint the words "freedom of speech" across it and explain how the often peaceful beliefs of said people don't really deserve respect anyway, then it's all good.

Yay. Such tolerant behavior. The media in Europe is a beacon to the world.

Ohhhh, so as long as we don't piss off anyone, freedom of speech is ok, but if we do, we are "asking for it".

what is the reason you are pissing them off for? it makes no sense to agitate 1 billion people for something 3 people did!

Indeed: if you have no real argument, you just say "GODWIN" like some faulty javascript program. Really, what do you think this adds to the thread, saying "GODWIN" like that?

Swastikas are an example of how a European nation (Germany, but maybe others, I'd have to look that up now) are not so zealously committed to freedom of speech as has been claimed. It's a valid point, in response to a point made in the thread.

What's the point of "GODWIN?" Yeah, you know how to say "GODWIN." How fucking impressive. Really, that ended the thread right there.

No, see you always get your panties in a bunch when someone makes an argument against Islam, and your arguments suffer greatly when you are in that berserker state of mind. I am sure your mindset is something like so: "They are talking about my beloved Muslims! OH NOES! I must defend them. But how? I know! I'll bring up Nazism which has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand! Yes, that will defend my beloved muslims!"

Unfortunately for you, your using of the swastika to take place of the images of the so-called prophet brings up a very good point; both are symbols of hate and intolerance, with the former being a symbol of nationalistic hatred towards jews, gypsies, and so forth, and the latter being a picture of a man who preached a very similar message of nationalistic dominance over so called inferior groups, such as the jews, pagans and christians.

explain this to me please!?!?!

He doesn't understand the Medina Charter.

Because you made the claim that European newspapers are dedicated to free speech. If so, why are there certain glaring, unopposed restrictions on their expression of said "free" speech?

It certainly isn't illegal to print swastikas in the UK, and I don't think it is in Sweden, Holland and Spain either, which is where the cartoons have been reprinted.

Yes, yes. This is about as heartwarming to me as tales of how, after 9/11 in our country, people came together for Good Things. Like buying some new diamonds, or perhaps hating and fearing Muslims.

I'm just never sold on this whole, War On Terror/Islam idea and I am not about to get emotional on command because some newspapers aren't giving in to a particular threat. Certainly not about "freedom of speech" or "freedom" for that matter.

I haven't looked at the cartoons, and it doesn't really matter.

Utterly pathetic. You haven't even seen the cartoons and yet you're prepared to launch uninformed rants as to how they're inciting hatred and fear towards Muslims, and attempting to prop up US foreign policy. If you'd taken the time to educate yourself you'd know that they were originally commisioned, not because the evil Neocon-Zionist-Puppykicking Conspiracy decided that people weren't scared enough of Islam, but because the author of a book on Mohammed couldn't find an artist brave enough to do the illustrations: they were all too intimidated. Jyllands-Posten commissioned these cartoons to illustrate the problem, which is why several of the cartoons (which you don't feel the need to see before passing judgement on them...) portray artists drawing almost illegible pictures while glancing furtively over their shoulders, or drawing a stickman labelled Mohammed with the caption 'Jyllands-Posten are a bunch of provocateurs'.

Of course, if you don't think that the facts behind the issue matter then I'm sure you'll just ignore all of this.

And really, this is more about how the cartoonists now feel safe cuz the police bailed one of them out. "Nyah, nyah, we have police protection!" Doesn't impress me.

Utter bullshit, further displaying your complete ignorance. The decision was taken by editors, none of whom have been given police protection as far as I know. Many of these newspapers had never published the cartoons before and so had been at no risk until they dared to stand up for free speech.

Of course, freedom of speech gives you the right to hurl uninformed invective at these people, while they put themselves at risk to protect that right for everyone.

what is the reason you are pissing them off for? it makes no sense to agitate 1 billion people for something 3 people did!

So by your logic, anything that upsets the Catholic Church should be censored immediately.

And anything about religion pisses off atheists, so that should be censored immediately.

And anything that upsets the homophobes should be censored too. So no PDAs, gays and lesbians, it upsets homophobes!

And because it upsets some people, no women should leave the house without a male escort, ever. And they should be covered from head to toe, too.

And because it upsets some people, anyone driving a car should be shot. So much damage to the environment.

And because it upsets some people, anyone not looking just like them should be beaten and have their house burned down. Because that will teach them not to buy a house in a neighborhood where they don't belong.

Basically, what you're saying is that people should stop living their lives and live in fear that some thugs will kill them for thinking, dressing, and speaking differently -- and you're giving it tacit support!

It's disgusting.

I disagree. I may not like the modern incarnation of Islam, particularly Islamicism and its more radical manifestations in the west, however, historically, it has been rather more tolerant than Christendom. At the zenith of Caliphate expansion in the Seventh century, Jews and Christians were tolerated as "peoples of the book", whislt Byzantine Emperor Heraclius persecuted Monophysites in Syria and Egypt for believing Jesus to have only one identity, divine, rather than two, divine and mortal.

woah, i take it back, your a balanced out person, sorry for what i said earlier

Well, this is a brilliant move. I'm glad that someone is finally thinking. See when 3 people of a particular persuasion attempt a heinous act, you capture and punish them. But you need to prevent this in the future, so you have to go further. So what you do is you insult everyone "like them". Sure it's bigotry and nonsense, but as long as we paint the words "freedom of speech" across it and explain how the often peaceful beliefs of said people don't really deserve respect anyway, then it's all good.

Yay. Such tolerant behavior. The media in Europe is a beacon to the world.


.

and the latter being a picture of a man who preached a very similar message of nationalistic dominance over so called inferior groups, such as the jews, pagans and christians.

explain this to me please!?!?!

Swastikas are an example of how a European nation (Germany, but maybe others, I'd have to look that up now) are not so zealously committed to freedom of speech as has been claimed. It's a valid point, in response to a point made in the thread.

All that would make sense if European countries having anti-Nazi symbology / holocaust denial laws wanting to impose their laws on the the rest of the world, because it offends them (Europeans).

Muslim radicals have no business trying to intimidate others into following their laws. Attempting to kill that cartoonist is nothing but that. Danes are not dhimmis living in a caliphate at the mercy of mullahs and fearing their fatwas. Reprinting the cartoons is their way of telling that.

So by your logic, anything that upsets the Catholic Church should be censored immediately.

And anything about religion pisses off atheists, so that should be censored immediately.

And anything that upsets the homophobes should be censored too. So no PDAs, gays and lesbians, it upsets homophobes!

And because it upsets some people, no women should leave the house without a male escort, ever. And they should be covered from head to toe, too.

And because it upsets some people, anyone driving a car should be shot. So much damage to the environment.

And because it upsets some people, anyone not looking just like them should be beaten and have their house burned down. Because that will teach them not to buy a house in a neighborhood where they don't belong.

Basically, what you're saying is that people should stop living their lives and live in fear that some thugs will kill them for thinking, dressing, and speaking differently -- and you're giving it tacit support!

It's disgusting.
no this is my logic: WE FORGOT ABOUT IT BY NOW
why bring it up again?

So by your logic, anything that upsets the Catholic Church should be censored immediately.

And anything about religion pisses off atheists, so that should be censored immediately.

And anything that upsets the homophobes should be censored too. So no PDAs, gays and lesbians, it upsets homophobes!

And because it upsets some people, no women should leave the house without a male escort, ever. And they should be covered from head to toe, too.

And because it upsets some people, anyone driving a car should be shot. So much damage to the environment.

And because it upsets some people, anyone not looking just like them should be beaten and have their house burned down. Because that will teach them not to buy a house in a neighborhood where they don't belong.

Basically, what you're saying is that people should stop living their lives and live in fear that some thugs will kill them for thinking, dressing, and speaking differently -- and you're giving it tacit support!

It's disgusting.


No, actually, it's quite different logic. The logic is that if three asians got pissed at a newspaper for printing racist cartoons against asians and tried to murder the cartoonist, it wouldn't be a show of solidarity to spite them by insulting all asians with those same cartoons. Go after the culprits, not the people who look like them.

Well, one honestly shouldn't look at the person or their actions, to decide whether or not their religion is unfavourable or not. All you have to do with Islam is read about its basic belief system, and you will realize how stinky it is.

I disagree. I may not like the modern incarnation of Islam, particularly Islamicism and its more radical manifestations in the west, however, historically, it has been rather more tolerant than Christendom. At the zenith of Caliphate expansion in the Seventh century, Jews and Christians were tolerated as "peoples of the book", whislt Byzantine Emperor Heraclius persecuted Monophysites in Syria and Egypt for believing Jesus to have only one identity, divine, rather than two, divine and mortal.

All that would make sense if European countries having anti-Nazi symbology / holocaust denial laws wanting to impose their laws on the the rest of the world, because it offends them (Europeans).

Muslim radicals have no business trying to intimidate others into following their laws. Attempting to kill that cartoonist is nothing but that. Danes are not dhimmis living in a caliphate at the mercy of mullahs and fearing their fatwas. Reprinting the cartoons is their way of telling that.

And those Muslim radicals who were involved were arrested and are being punished. That's an adequate proof that freedom of speech is protected. Insulting the entire group, many of which condemns their action as much or more than we do, just to prove a point, only shows one thing, that we excuse bigotry when it's against the right kind of people.

:rolleyes:, and here i thought that the ebil moslem haters were a minority, do you know how i found out about nationstates? my friends told me they went on it a couple of times and were scared about the number of poeple like you who say this about them

I don't hate Muslims, that is for sure. I hate Islam though. Wanna hear a silly thing in Islam? Here read this hadith. Its a Sahih Bukari, so I am fairly sure you will accept it, unless you are Shia.

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 783:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
The Prophet used to deliver his sermons while standing beside a trunk of a datepalm. When he had the pulpit made, he used it instead. The trunk started crying and the Prophet went to it, rubbing his hand over it (to stop its crying).

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 784:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet used to stand by a tree or a date-palm on Friday. Then an Ansari woman or man said. "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we make a pulpit for you?" He replied, "If you wish." So they made a pulpit for him and when it was Friday, he proceeded towards the pulpit (for delivering the sermon). The date-palm cried like a child! The Prophet descended (the pulpit) and embraced it while it continued moaning like a child being quietened. The Prophet said, "It was crying for (missing) what it used to hear of religious knowledge given near to it."

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 785:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
That he heard Jabir bin 'Abdullah saying, "The roof of the Mosque was built over trunks of date-palms working as pillars. When the Prophet delivered a sermon, he used to stand by one of those trunks till the pulpit was made for him, and he used it instead. Then we heard the trunk sending a sound like of a pregnant she-camel till the Prophet came to it, and put his hand over it, then it became quiet."


So tell me, have you ever seen a date tree cry? lol

How about a cow that talks?

Here is another hadith narrated by Abu Huraira, which I know that Muslims will accept him as being authentic:
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 677:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Once Allah's Apostle; offered the morning prayer and then faced the people and said, "While a man was driving a cow, he suddenly rode over it and beat it. The cow said, "We have not been created for this, but we have been created for sloughing." On that the people said astonishingly, "Glorified be Allah! A cow speaks!" The Prophet said, "I believe this, and Abu Bakr and 'Umar too, believe it, although neither of them was present there. While a person was amongst his sheep, a wolf attacked and took one of the sheep. The man chased the wolf till he saved it from the wolf, where upon the wolf said, 'You have saved it from me; but who will guard it on the day of the wild beasts when there will be no shepherd to guard them except me (because of riots and afflictions)? ' " The people said surprisingly, "Glorified be Allah! A wolf speaks!" The Prophet said, "But I believe this, and Abu Bakr and 'Umar too, believe this, although neither of them was present there."


Sounds a lot like that kids movie or something, with all the talking animals, and crying trees. Wow.

what is the reason you are pissing them off for? it makes no sense to agitate 1 billion people for something 3 people did!

You know, every time the Azan call is made over loudspeaker that "La illaha il allah" it offends me that they are denying the existence of my God.

But I don't go out and destroy the muezzin. ;)

I disagree. I may not like the modern incarnation of Islam, particularly Islamicism and its more radical manifestations in the west, however, historically, it has been rather more tolerant than Christendom. At the zenith of Caliphate expansion in the Seventh century, Jews and Christians were tolerated as "peoples of the book", whislt Byzantine Emperor Heraclius persecuted Monophysites in Syria and Egypt for believing Jesus to have only one identity, divine, rather than two, divine and mortal.

Yes, but where in the Christian bible does it say to be murderous fools? The worst I can think of is that it tells us to hate evil,because God hates evil. But thats not so bad, now is it? So, how then, can you blame christianity for what supposed christians do, if its not in any holy scripture? On the flip side, in Islam it is well known that there is a system of misogyny, oppression of minority groups, and so on, written by their own prophet.

And those Muslim radicals who were involved were arrested and are being punished. That's an adequate proof that freedom of speech is protected. Insulting the entire group, many of which condemns their action as much or more than we do, just to prove a point, only shows one thing, that we excuse bigotry when it's against the right kind of people.

What is bigotry is subjective.

When a religion itself can practice bigotry, it is excused but not when individuals do it?

No, actually, it's quite different logic. The logic is that if three asians got pissed at a newspaper for printing racist cartoons against asians and tried to murder the cartoonist, it wouldn't be a show of solidarity to spite them by insulting all asians with those same cartoons. Go after the culprits, not the people who look like them.

It may or may not be a good move for the Newspapers, but do you support their right to print the images regardless?

explain this to me please!?!?!

I am saying that your prophet preached a message against the jews, against pagans, against christians, and preached for an Bedouin dominated world. Islam is just system based on one bedouin's crazy ideas. It is not a system of religion. You think that God really only accepts prayers that are in arabic? You think God only rewards those who practice arab customs? If you really believe that, then your god is not the god of all humanity, but just a god of your people, and that is that.

What is bigotry is subjective.

When a religion itself can practice bigotry, it is excused but not when individuals do it?

Quote of the thread.

What is bigotry is subjective.

When a religion itself can practice bigotry, it is excused but not when individuals do it?

I don't excuse it. The entire religion doesn't practice bigotry though. Some sects do, but that's really neither here nor there. Some republicans are racist, but people who use that as a broad brush to attack them are equally idiotic.

It may or may not be a good move for the Newspapers, but do you support their right to print the images regardless?

I do support their right to print anything and everything. They can call black people niggers and be within their rights, in my opinion. HAVING the right to do it, doesn't mean it IS right to do it.

I don't excuse it. The entire religion doesn't practice bigotry though. Some sects do, but that's really neither here nor there. Some republicans are racist, but people who use that as a broad brush to attack them are equally idiotic.

I don't like a situation where blaspheming is viewed as an attack on every single Muslim.

So, this is what European newspapers will stoop to in order to boost sales?

And they get to parade themselves as paragons of free speech, too. How nice. Has anyone pointed out that this will also offend Muslims who defend free speech?

-Snip on Hadiths-

Well,... they're Hadiths that came from people with poetry in their culture (this is from the earlier topic in NSG about wikipedia depictions of Muhammad). I'm surprised you take those things literally Zilam, usually you point out the major faults without resorting to those measure. Not to mention they're hadiths to boot.

I do support their right to print anything and everything. They can call black people niggers and be within their rights, in my opinion. HAVING the right to do it, doesn't mean it IS right to do it.

.

















:p:D:cool:

This is just flamebaiting IRL. Idiots, on both sides. While I support their right to be (idiotic) free speech, I still don't think its a good idea.

The cartoons can be viewed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png) (I haven't posted the image directly so nobody's forced to look at them) and I urge everyone to actually look at them before passing uninformed judgements:

-The only one which could potentially be seen as encouraging hatred of Muslims is the bomb turban one, and the cartoonist behind that has already said that it's a commentary on how Islam has been hijacked to justify terrorism, not an attack on the religion itself.

-The second most 'offensive' one is quite a clever take on womens rights in Islam (two women standing behind Mohammed: they wear burkhas so all that's visible is a small rectangle around their eyes, while Mohammed is completely visible except for a small rectangle around his eyes.

-Another shows a non-descript man with a beard and two small horns.

-My personal favourite shows a line of charred looking former-suicide bombers lining up in heaven, while Mohammed runs up shouting "Stop! Stop! We've run out of virgins!"

-My second favourite shows Mohammed looking at a piece of paper (presumably the cartoons) and saying to two outraged, sword-wielding men behind him "calm down guys, it's just a couple of cartoons in some Danish newspaper".

-Another has a man's face (looking suspiciously like Captain Haddock from Tin Tin) with an Islamic crescent looping around the curve of his chin and a star in his right eye.

-One simply shows a man leading a donkey across a desert (Oh no! the Islamophobia is palpable!)

-Another good one shows a satirical self-portrait of a cartoonist, holding a small piece of paper with a stick-figure Mohammed on.

-One of them is completely incomprehensible, looking like an invasion of Islamic space-invaders/pacmen. Does anyone here speak Danish?

-Another cartoon shows a fearful cartoonist hunched over his desk, glancing over his picture as he draws a picture of Mohammed.

-The last shows a schoolboy standing in front of a blackboard, on which is written in Arabic 'Jylland Posten are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs'. A caption identifies the boy as 'Mohammed, age 11 1/2 (I going from memory here as I can't make it out on the Wikipedia page).

These aren't encouraging Islamophobia, they are an intelligent reaction to a potential problem for freedom of speech.

Yes, but where in the Christian bible does it say to be murderous fools? The worst I can think of is that it tells us to hate evil,because God hates evil. But thats not so bad, now is it? So, how then, can you blame christianity for what supposed christians do, if its not in any holy scripture? On the flip side, in Islam it is well known that there is a system of misogyny, oppression of minority groups, and so on, written by their own prophet.

Misogyny is a little excessive; I am not personally a fan of the veil, and would consider it an oppressive symbol, but mysogynistic? No. Rather, anachronistic.

Equally, I fail to see how Islam, is its purest form, is any more liable to oppress "minorities", be they ethnic, religious or social, than any other monotheistic faith. Indeed, the inclusivity of early Islam contributed to its appeal over Byzantine or Sasanian hegemony.

Where war is concerned, it is my understanding that the Qu'ran permits violence as a response to aggression from another faith or state; this seems wholly reasonable, and far more appealling than the "turn the other cheek" tripe espoused by Christians.

I don't excuse it. The entire religion doesn't practice bigotry though. Some sects do, but that's really neither here nor there. Some republicans are racist, but people who use that as a broad brush to attack them are equally idiotic.

Of course we excuse it. Every monotheistic faiths have explicitly said that only their God is true, only they will go to heaven, unbelievers will go to hell, gays are to be stoned etc etc..stuff that is anti-xyz or anti-abc. But we give it a pass, because it is a religion. Not to be offended with. Especially when some of its followers threaten to be violent when they declare themselves as offended. Used to be christians with their blashpemy and heretic accusations and burning at stakes etc. Thankfully Christians do that less these days. Muslims need to get there. I don't know if cartoon type incidents help or not but worrying about offending them won't get them there.

I don't like a situation where blaspheming is viewed as an attack on every single Muslim.

Insulting people is viewed as an insult. Who knew? If you can explain to me how a bomb in the turban of their central figure, doing both blaspheming and insulting their central figures, is not insulting, I'd be shocked.

And, look, now all the happy little bigots come out and use this as an excuse to continue to broad brush a bunch of groups who often don't agree with each other. But it's just "free speach", right? Free speech can never be bigotry, unless you know what bigotry is.

Allahsaurus is pleased!

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/allahsaurus.jpg

Misogyny is a little excessive; I am not personally a fan of the veil, and would consider it an oppressive symbol, but mysogynistic? No. Rather, anachronistic. I don't know. When your holy book says that your wife is a land to be plowed into, she has half the intelligence of a man, and so on and so forth. I am not even going to count the veil in the argument, because even with out that, Islam is still a misogynistic religion


Equally, I fail to see how Islam, is its purest form, is any more liable to oppress "minorities", be they ethnic, religious or social, than any other monotheistic faith. Indeed, the inclusivity of early Islam contributed to its appeal over Byzantine or Sasanian hegemony. Its purest form? Like I said, you have to look at what the religion calls for. The byzantines, or catholics, or protestants, or who ever they may be can not go to the bible and see "Oh hey look, Jesus told me to oppress the pagans or other non christians!" However, you look at al quraan, and the sayings of Muhammad in the hadith, and you see how a Muslim can justify the killing of jews and christians, the use of extortion when dealing with the submissive dhimmis.

Where war is concerned, it is my understanding that the Qu'ran permits violence as a response to aggression from another faith or state; this seems wholly reasonable, and far more appealling than the "turn the other cheek" tripe espoused by Christians.
And see, that is how we can know Islam is just from man; because it appeals to the senses of man. Man says hey, fight back if fought. Man wants to have loads of sex(promised in Jannah).

And well, Christianity seems to be so different from it, you know? Christianity talks about denying oneself of pleasures to grow closer to God. Man cannot simply make up such a thing, because there is no flesh based appeal there.

But thats another rant for another time.

no this is my logic: WE FORGOT ABOUT IT BY NOW
why bring it up again?

Because it is connected to a news story about some people who did NOT forget it, and were plotting MURDER because of it... all this time after it had NOT been printed.

So again, everyone should avoid saying, thinking, or printing anything that might upset people and make thugs try to murder them.

Of course we excuse it. Every monotheistic faiths have explicitly said that only their God is true, only they will go to heaven, unbelievers will go to hell, gays are to be stoned etc etc..stuff that is anti-xyz or anti-abc. But we give it a pass, because it is a religion. Not to be offended with. Especially when some of its followers threaten to be violent when they declare themselves as offended. Used to be christians with their blashpemy and heretic accusations and burning at stakes etc. Thankfully Christians do that less these days. Muslims need to get there. I don't know if cartoon type incidents help or not but worrying about offending them won't get them there.

Um, again, broad brushes. Nothing like avoiding treating individuals like *gasp* individuals. Quick tell me all about how black people are criminals and basketball players. Oh, right, right, you get a free pass with religion. Bigotry about religions isn't REALLY bigotry.

I don't hate Muslims, that is for sure. I hate Islam though.

how does that work exactly ? :confused:

Insulting people is viewed as an insult. Who knew? If you can explain to me how a bomb in the turban of their central figure, doing both blaspheming and insulting their central figures, is not insulting, I'd be shocked.

And, look, now all the happy little bigots come out and use this as an excuse to continue to broad brush a bunch of groups who often don't agree with each other. But it's just "free speach", right? Free speech can never be bigotry, unless you know what bigotry is.

Insulting a religion is not bigotry, whether people get offended or not. If I say Jesus was an idiotic dick head, that is not bigotry, it is not saying any group of people is inferior to another group of people, it is simply insulting the beliefs of those people. Sure Christians will get offended, but that doesn't make it bigotry.

Because it is connected to a news story about some people who did NOT forget it, and were plotting MURDER because of it... all this time after it had NOT been printed.

So again, everyone should avoid saying, thinking, or printing anything that might upset people and make thugs try to murder them.

Avoid? Who said avoid? You know there is a huge difference between avoiding printing them and printing them out of spite, right? They admit this is to spite the attackers, and, in turn, any other Muslims who are offended. Because before they are bombers or attempted murderers, they're first and foremost evil Muslims who get what they deserve.

how does that work exactly ? :confused:

My mother thinks that neighbours is a good drama, I dislike that belief because I think it is a crappy drama, that doesn't mean I dislike my mother. Do you understand?

I don't hate Muslims, that is for sure. I hate Islam though. Wanna hear a silly thing in Islam? Here read this hadith. Its a Sahih Bukari, so I am fairly sure you will accept it, unless you are Shia.

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 783:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
The Prophet used to deliver his sermons while standing beside a trunk of a datepalm. When he had the pulpit made, he used it instead. The trunk started crying and the Prophet went to it, rubbing his hand over it (to stop its crying).

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 784:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet used to stand by a tree or a date-palm on Friday. Then an Ansari woman or man said. "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we make a pulpit for you?" He replied, "If you wish." So they made a pulpit for him and when it was Friday, he proceeded towards the pulpit (for delivering the sermon). The date-palm cried like a child! The Prophet descended (the pulpit) and embraced it while it continued moaning like a child being quietened. The Prophet said, "It was crying for (missing) what it used to hear of religious knowledge given near to it."

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 785:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
That he heard Jabir bin 'Abdullah saying, "The roof of the Mosque was built over trunks of date-palms working as pillars. When the Prophet delivered a sermon, he used to stand by one of those trunks till the pulpit was made for him, and he used it instead. Then we heard the trunk sending a sound like of a pregnant she-camel till the Prophet came to it, and put his hand over it, then it became quiet."


So tell me, have you ever seen a date tree cry? lol

How about a cow that talks?

Here is another hadith narrated by Abu Huraira, which I know that Muslims will accept him as being authentic:
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 677:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Once Allah's Apostle; offered the morning prayer and then faced the people and said, "While a man was driving a cow, he suddenly rode over it and beat it. The cow said, "We have not been created for this, but we have been created for sloughing." On that the people said astonishingly, "Glorified be Allah! A cow speaks!" The Prophet said, "I believe this, and Abu Bakr and 'Umar too, believe it, although neither of them was present there. While a person was amongst his sheep, a wolf attacked and took one of the sheep. The man chased the wolf till he saved it from the wolf, where upon the wolf said, 'You have saved it from me; but who will guard it on the day of the wild beasts when there will be no shepherd to guard them except me (because of riots and afflictions)? ' " The people said surprisingly, "Glorified be Allah! A wolf speaks!" The Prophet said, "But I believe this, and Abu Bakr and 'Umar too, believe this, although neither of them was present there."


Sounds a lot like that kids movie or something, with all the talking animals, and crying trees. Wow.

Be fair. Do burning bushes talk, either, in your experience?
Do seas part to let people escape?

I'd think it's fair to say there's a lot in religious texts that someone who doesn't believe would think is silly.

how does that work exactly ? :confused:

I love the people, I just hate their religion. I am sure that is fairly easy to understand.

Be fair. Do burning bushes talk, either, in your experience?
Do seas part to let people escape?

I'd think it's fair to say there's a lot in religious texts that someone who doesn't believe would think is silly.


There is a difference between God making something talk, and objects talking on their own. God as a burning bush, I can understand. Date palm crying because it Mohammad decided to use a pulpit, I cannot understand.

I actually mostly agree with Jocabia. I see the reasoning behind the reposting of the cartoons, and I support their right to do it - but I'm not convinced that it's the best idea.

And I hope that it'll pass relatively unnoticed...

Allahsaurus is pleased!

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/allahsaurus.jpg

That should be sigged!

I am saying that your prophet preached a message against the jews, against pagans, against christians, and preached for an Bedouin dominated world. http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm
i think this is what your talking about, not really sure

You think that God really only accepts prayers that are in arabic? You think God only rewards those who practice arab customs? If you really believe that, then your god is not the god of all humanity, but just a god of your people, and that is that.

dont jews pray in hebrew, catholic sometimes in latin? doesnt the talmud and the torah speak of following the law and being rewarded for it? dont the jews say that call god "god of the jews"?

Allahsaurus is pleased!


NO U!

You'll tempt the anger of the Raptor-Jesuits. This will only complicate matters :p

Avoid? Who said avoid? You know there is a huge difference between avoiding printing them and printing them out of spite, right? They admit this is to spite the attackers, and, in turn, any other Muslims who are offended. Because before they are bombers or attempted murderers, they're first and foremost evil Muslims who get what they deserve.

Then tell me: why is no one ever concerned about printing things that upset the Catholic church? Or homosexuals? or homophobes? Why are Italians all portrayed as mobsters, and all blacks and hispanics as gangsters in the popular media, but no one worries that they'll be upset and offended?

I am hugely tired of being told that the world needs to pussyfoot about and make sure they don't say anything offensive about one group, when it's fine to spread it around everywhere else. And why? Because if you DON'T pussyfoot around that group, members of it will use violence and you will deserve it. I didn't even say that last bit -- Hezbollah did.

See the difference?

There is a difference between God making something talk, and objects talking on their own. God as a burning bush, I can understand. Date palm crying because it Mohammad decided to use a pulpit, I cannot understand.

And who's to say the date palm was not imbued with sentience because of its close contact with a holy man?

That makes less sense that an bush telling Abraham, "Don't kill Isaac, there's a goat caught by its horns over here?"

NO U!

You'll tempt the anger of the Raptor-Jesuits. This will only complicate matters :p

When I become the new Almighty, I'll straighten the whole thing out. :)

Insulting people is viewed as an insult. Who knew? If you can explain to me how a bomb in the turban of their central figure, doing both blaspheming and insulting their central figures, is not insulting, I'd be shocked.

Easy. Mohammed with a bomb is his turban is a metaphor for muslims that claim to bomb in his name.

See ? Not insulting.

Aside from which the problem is officially not with the insulting - it is with the representation. Some of the muslim flavours think images of Mohammed, regardless if they are flattering or not, are sinful.

Of course other muslim flavours produce them by the dozen.

And who's to say the date palm was not imbued with sentience because of its close contact with a holy man?

That makes less sense that an bush telling Abraham, "Don't kill Isaac, there's a goat caught by its horns over here?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxZuW5sjEls

:D

It's real life flamebaiting. They republish the exact same set of cartoons that everyone knows sets off a few unstable assholes in the hope that more of said assholes with react violently, which they will then use as "further proof that m0sl3mz r 3b1l."

And who's to say the date palm was not imbued with sentience because of its close contact with a holy man?

That makes less sense that an bush telling Abraham, "Don't kill Isaac, there's a goat caught by its horns over here?"

If you can call mohammad holy.... And as far as I know, it was an angel of the lord that told Abraham not to kill isaac, not a bush.

anyways this debate is useless considering the topic at hand.

Because it is connected to a news story about some people who did NOT forget it, and were plotting MURDER because of it... all this time after it had NOT been printed.

So again, everyone should avoid saying, thinking, or printing anything that might upset people and make thugs try to murder them.

3 people out of 1 billion, does not make it sensible to remind the other 999,999,997 of it

Insulting people is viewed as an insult. Who knew? If you can explain to me how a bomb in the turban of their central figure, doing both blaspheming and insulting their central figures, is not insulting, I'd be shocked.

And, look, now all the happy little bigots come out and use this as an excuse to continue to broad brush a bunch of groups who often don't agree with each other. But it's just "free speach", right? Free speech can never be bigotry, unless you know what bigotry is.

So you would then place the photoshops of Pope Benedict with lightning bolts coming out of his hands and references to The Emperor to be similarly bigoted?

And there have been protests and attempted murders about that?

If you can call mohammad holy....

Holier than Jesus according to over 20% of the worlds population.

Then tell me: why is no one ever concerned about printing things that upset the Catholic church? Or homosexuals? or homophobes? Why are Italians all portrayed as mobsters, and all blacks and hispanics as gangsters in the popular media, but no one worries that they'll be upset and offended?

I am hugely tired of being told that the world needs to pussyfoot about and make sure they don't say anything offensive about one group, when it's fine to spread it around everywhere else. And why? Because if you DON'T pussyfoot around that group, members of it will use violence and you will deserve it. I didn't even say that last bit -- Hezbollah did.

See the difference?
when did i say it was okay to say any of that? also:

Islam is just system based on one bedouin's crazy ideas. It is not a system of religion.
i think that is a flame

Holier than Jesus according to over 20% of the worlds population.

Actually,even in Islam, Prophet esa, which is losely based on Jesus, is still higher and better than mohammad. Esa is the word of God. Esa will be there at judgement day. Esa was taken to heaven alive, and will come back to save the world. While, at the same time, Mohammad was paedophile. Holy holy holy, is mohammad.:rolleyes:



i think that is a flame

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/lol-46383.jpg

I hope you aren't serious.

Oh, I see, so "god did it" is an acceptable explanation for you :rolleyes:

God has unlimited power to do what He wants. However, no, just saying God did it is not enough for me. Believe it or not, I am still a sceptic about a lot of things, especially in the Old Testament. But I am not going to let it turn my faith upside down. Nor will I just accept it as truth, because of fear of losing my faith again. Instead, I continuously look for answers. I was giving the most simple explanation. I am sure there are loads of scientific answers i can give for "x" even in the bible.

What? That I support freedom of speech? My supporting of freedom of speech sickens you?

...You stole an innocent thread you thread stealer...you sicken me...I dunno about the other guy...

Hurrah for needlessly antagonising people?

There is a difference between God making something talk, and objects talking on their own. God as a burning bush, I can understand. Date palm crying because it Mohammad decided to use a pulpit, I cannot understand.

Oh, I see, so "god did it" is an acceptable explanation for you :rolleyes:

There is a difference between God making something talk, and objects talking on their own. God as a burning bush, I can understand. Date palm crying because it Mohammad decided to use a pulpit, I cannot understand.

You're silly :)

Actually,even in Islam, Prophet esa, which is losely based on Jesus, is still higher and better than mohammad. Esa is the word of God. Esa will be there at judgement day. Esa was taken to heaven alive, and will come back to save the world. While, at the same time, Mohammad was paedophile. Holy holy holy, is mohammad.:rolleyes:

A pedophile and the ultimate representative of Allah on earth.
Moslims consider Isa holy, but Mohammed far more so.

Muslims aren't even human according to the vast majority of NSGers, remember?

What the fuck? Please show even one NSGer who says this.

The West is still in love with the image of them as insectoid killing machines all telepathically linked to Osama Bin Laden ready to follow his bidding on a moment's whim.

No they are not, I only know one person who has anywhere near a belief that extreme.

This:

Nor will I just accept it as truth, because of fear of losing my faith again. Instead, I continuously look for answers.

Does not in any way jive with this:

God has unlimited power to do what He wants.

"God did it" isn't an answer. It's not searching for truth. It's the ultimite cop out. No need to question, no need to think about the truth of it. N reason to consider the author or be intelligent about or cultural awareness.

Just the blind utterance of "god did it"

This:



Does not in any way jive with this:



"God did it" isn't an answer. It's not searching for truth. It's the ultimite cop out. No need to question, no need to think about the truth of it. N reason to consider the author or be intelligent about or cultural awareness.

"God did it".

Ok, lets say it like this: God made life. That is saying God did it? No? But I can dive deeper and say that God made life through evolution, or by snapping his fingers, or dancing the jig. One is general statement that shows that God is the ultimate cause. If you want to waste your life to dive deeper into all the specifics, then go ahead. Like I said, I still ask questions and look for the answers, but I am not going to spend all this time trying to find out every specific detail, when I could be out helping the world by giving them a message of hope, love and peace.

Muslims aren't even human according to the vast majority of NSGers, remember? The West is still in love with the image of them as insectoid killing machines all telepathically linked to Osama Bin Laden ready to follow his bidding on a moment's whim.
It's not the vast majority, it's a very vocal minority, and sometimes criticism of the conduct of some elements of the Muslim population is absolutely warranted.

This is just exactly the kind of thing that pisses me off, though.

"Hurrah, they're pissing off Muslims"
"Hurrah for free speech, we are oh so better than them"
"Agreed"

The assassination attempt was wrong, and should rightly be condemned, but doing so by antagonising Muslims? Bad idea.

Telling over a billion people that 3 of their batshit insane numbers are categorical proof that they're all homicidal pedophile worshippers is really going to work miracles in cutting down sympathy and recruitment for terrorist cells that go on the propaganda of "The West hates you and your beliefs, and would have you all killed if they could get away with it."

The most brilliant tactic since diverting resources from Afghanistan to go after Iraq.

:rolleyes:

Hurrah for needlessly antagonising people?

Muslims aren't even human according to the vast majority of NSGers, remember? The West is still in love with the image of them as insectoid killing machines all telepathically linked to Osama Bin Laden ready to follow his bidding on a moment's whim.

Muslims aren't even human according to the vast majority of NSGers, remember? The West is still in love with the image of them as insectoid killing machines all telepathically linked to Osama Bin Laden ready to follow his bidding on a moment's whim.

Wow. Please show where anyone on NSG has said this, outside of DK.

When I become the new Almighty, I'll straighten the whole thing out. :)

Almighty? I thought you were only running for President! :D

Every religion has flaws that need criticism.

Though in all fairness most Muslims forbid that when talking about their own religion. Islam may not be criticised in any way.

That does provoke a certain type of nonbeliever to be more hostile towards it.

Almighty? I thought you were only running for President! :D

The presidency is just the first step...

LG for President '08
LG for God '12

The presidency is just the first step...

I am certain that God is either LG or Anonymous.

Not really,... but I think it's close enough.

It's not the vast majority, it's a very vocal minority, and sometimes criticism of the conduct of some elements of the Muslim population is absolutely warranted.

This is just exactly the kind of thing that pisses me off, though.

"Hurrah, they're pissing off Muslims"
"Hurrah for free speech, we are oh so better than them"
"Agreed"

The assassination attempt was wrong, and should rightly be condemned, but doing so by antagonising Muslims? Bad idea.

The antagonism is deliberate. They know they'll successfully provoke an unstable fringe element of the group into committing a violent act, and when that violence occurs the media spotlight will suddenly focus on that and trumpet to effect of "See? We told you m0sl3mz r 3b1l! n00k d3m!"

Every religion has flaws that need criticism. Problem is demonizing Islam is the newest guilt-free substitute for anti-Jewism and everyone can't get enough of it, throwing tact and discretion out the window in an all out attempt to dehumanize its followers and gloat about it.

Though in all fairness most Muslims forbid that when talking about their own religion. Islam may not be criticised in any way.

That does provoke a certain type of nonbeliever to be more hostile towards it.

Yeah, unlike other religions, you cannot question Islam at all. Why? Because if you honestly do that, you will see how stupid it is, and will be an apostate.

The antagonism is deliberate. They know they'll successfully provoke an unstable fringe element of the group into committing a violent act, and when that violence occurs the media spotlight will suddenly focus on that and trumpet to effect of "See? We told you m0sl3mz r 3b1l! n00k d3m!"


And your grounds for believing in the existence of such conspiracy is....?


Every religion has flaws that need criticism. Problem is demonizing Islam is the newest guilt-free substitute for anti-Jewism and everyone can't get enough of it, throwing tact and discretion out the window in an all out attempt to dehumanize its followers and gloat about it.

That statement is completely nonsensical, especially in Europe. Only a very small minority of people literally dehumanize Muslims, and criticising (in an insulting way) the beliefs of a religion is fucking miles away from dehumanizing it.

Yeah, unlike other religions, you cannot question Islam at all. Why? Because if you honestly do that, you will see how stupid it is, and will be an apostate.

Well.. in practice Christians did and do the same. Galileo is one of the best examples of the did, and when talking about the do... ever noticed some hostility against evolution or denying the historicity of Jesus ?

At least moslims are more upfront about it ;)

The antagonism is deliberate. They know they'll successfully provoke an unstable fringe element of the group into committing a violent act, and when that violence occurs the media spotlight will suddenly focus on that and trumpet to effect of "See? We told you m0sl3mz r 3b1l! n00k d3m!"
I don't think it's any kind of conspiracy, more just extremely pissed off journalists getting back in their own way.
Every religion has flaws that need criticism. Problem is demonizing Islam is the newest guilt-free substitute for anti-Jewism and everyone can't get enough of it, throwing tact and discretion out the window in an all out attempt to dehumanize its followers and gloat about it.
Simply untrue.

Muslims aren't even human according to the vast majority of NSGers, remember? The West is still in love with the image of them as insectoid killing machines all telepathically linked to Osama Bin Laden ready to follow his bidding on a moment's whim.

The antagonism is deliberate. They know they'll successfully provoke an unstable fringe element of the group into committing a violent act, and when that violence occurs the media spotlight will suddenly focus on that and trumpet to effect of "See? We told you m0sl3mz r 3b1l! n00k d3m!"

Every religion has flaws that need criticism. Problem is demonizing Islam is the newest guilt-free substitute for anti-Jewism and everyone can't get enough of it, throwing tact and discretion out the window in an all out attempt to dehumanize its followers and gloat about it.

Wow... Just wow...

Strawmen, poisoning the well, absurd hyperbole... it's all here.

Well.. in practice Christians did and do the same. Galileo is one of the best examples of the did, and when talking about the do... ever noticed some hostility against evolution or denying the historicity of Jesus ?

At least moslims are more upfront about it ;)

See? I have never never had any Christian pastor, elder or anyone else, tell me not to question the faith. They all told me to do so, because it strengthens it. It produces a strong foundation.

Those who are hostile against evolution are just silly. We all know that. Most of them probably could only quote one verse of the entire bible, and thats the extent of the Christianity. They are like uninformed voters. They hear all this hype, and don't investigate into it to see what its all about.

That's really a silly description of someone who lived more than a thousand years ago.

*shrug*. If you want to make someone your example of good living for all generations to come you should expect him to be judged by the social norms in all eras to come. Should be easy for Allah.

None I know of claims it's forbidden, strangely enough. And the discussions within Islam gets lively at times.

Debates on the interpretation or on the actual validity and the personalities of Muhammed and Allah ? As far as I know the latter are called blasphemy.

And your grounds for believing in the existence of such conspiracy is....?

Given the proportion of Western Media coverage of Muslim-associated acts of violence as opposed to any positive stories of Muslims being a productive member of society and trying to stop the violence, not to mention it's no secret what happened when those cartoons were first published, it's not a conspiracy theory so much as a plausible hypothesis.

That statement is completely nonsensical, especially in Europe. Only a very small minority of people literally dehumanize people, and criticising (in an insulting way) the beliefs of a religion is fucking miles away from dehumanizing it.

Criticizing a religion in depth is one thing, an ad-hominem attack of its founder as a murderous pedophile which has absolutely jack shit to do with the actual philosophy of the religion itself is just pure asshattery, gloating, spite and flamebaiting.

God has unlimited power to do what He wants.
Yet making animals talk seems ludicrous to you...
A pedophile and the ultimate representative of Allah on earth.
That's really a silly description of someone who lived more than a thousand years ago.

Though in all fairness most Muslims forbid that when talking about their own religion. Islam may not be criticised in any way.

That does provoke a certain type of nonbeliever to be more hostile towards it.

None I know of claims it's forbidden, strangely enough. And the discussions within Islam gets lively at times.

criticising (in an insulting way) the beliefs of a religion is fucking miles away from dehumanizing it.

Quoted for fucking truth. It's possible to say "If Moses existed as portrayed in the Bible then he was an evil, murderous barstard" without saying (or implying) "Jews are non-human". I'm quite open in saying that large portions of the Tanach (or 'Old Testament' as the Christians call it) are sick, and yet I've never been accused of anti-Semitism because I criticise the beliefs, not the people.

Some people seem to have trouble grasping that distinction when it comes to Islam, and as I've already pointed out the cartoons are relatively mild, and far less rude about Mohammed than, for example, The Life of Brian or Jerry Springer: The Opera were towards Jesus.

Some people seem to have trouble grasping that distinction when it comes to Islam, and as I've already pointed out the cartoons are relatively mild, and far less rude about Mohammed than, for example, The Life of Brian or Jerry Springer: The Opera were towards Jesus.

How exactly was Life of Brian rude towards Jezus ?
Rude towards the myriads of sekts that hate eachother due to a different placement of comma's - sure, I see that. Rude towards people that yell "it is a sign, a sign !" at the most inane things ? Oh yes. People that refuse to think and only parrot ? Hey - fair nuff.

But Jesus ? He was not portrayed in a rude way.

Given the proportion of Western Media coverage of Muslim-associated acts of violence as opposed to any positive stories of Muslims being a productive member of society and trying to stop the violence, not to mention it's no secret what happened when those cartoons were first published, it's not a conspiracy theory so much as a plausible hypothesis.


Nope, it's speculation. Prove that western Media coverage only shows violent Muslims rather than Muslims contributing in a charitable way. Further show that if this is the case, it's not because someone doing charity work is not newsworthy.


Criticizing a religion in depth is one thing, an ad-hominem attack of its founder as a murderous pedophile which has absolutely jack shit to do with the actual philosophy of the religion itself is just pure asshattery, gloating, spite and flamebaiting.

But he did murder people, and you could call him a pedophile. And despite all this, it is still no way near the same as dehumanizing a huge population of people.

"Muhammed is a murderous pedophile" is mild to you? I have yet to hear of any "criticism" of the founders of any other religion that could even begin to approach the direct vulgarity and implication of "murderous pedophile."

The fact that we know for certain Mohammed was actually a real person does have its up- and downsides. Upside is the credibility his religion gains (and the lack of a 100+ pages topic with the question if he was real or not).

Downside.. well, these are a few.

Quoted for fucking truth. It's possible to say "If Moses existed as portrayed in the Bible then he was an evil, murderous barstard" without saying (or implying) "Jews are non-human". I'm quite open in saying that large portions of the Tanach (or 'Old Testament' as the Christians call it) are sick, and yet I've never been accused of anti-Semitism because I criticise the beliefs, not the people.

Some people seem to have trouble grasping that distinction when it comes to Islam, and as I've already pointed out the cartoons are relatively mild, and far less rude about Mohammed than, for example, The Life of Brian or Jerry Springer: The Opera were towards Jesus.

"Muhammed is a murderous pedophile" is mild to you? I have yet to hear of any "criticism" of the founders of any other religion that could even begin to approach the direct vulgarity and implication of "murderous pedophile."

"Muhammed is a murderous pedophile" is mild to you? I have yet to hear of any "criticism" of the founders of any other religion that could even begin to approach the direct vulgarity and implication of "murderous pedophile."

Well, unlike other religious leaders, Mohammad's description is quite accurate. You have sex with a 9 year old? You are a paedophile. You kill people who criticize you? You are a murderer. Mohammad did both, so that makes him a murderous paedophile.

Criticizing a religion in depth is one thing, an ad-hominem attack of its founder as a murderous pedophile which has absolutely jack shit to do with the actual philosophy of the religion itself is just pure asshattery, gloating, spite and flamebaiting.

You do realise that the moral perfection of the prophets is a central doctrine of Islam, right? Therefore:

P1. Mohammed was a murderer and a paedophile.
P2. People who are murderers and paedophiles aren't morally perfect.
IC. Therefore Mohammed wasn't morally perfect.
P3. Islam teaches that Mohammed was morally perfect.
C. Therefore Islam is wrong on a least one point.

None I know of claims it's forbidden, strangely enough. And the discussions within Islam gets lively at times.

Well, people have been forced into hiding after having fatwās placed on their heads for even minor questioning the historical accuracy of the Quran.

Then tell me: why is no one ever concerned about printing things that upset the Catholic church? Or homosexuals? or homophobes? Why are Italians all portrayed as mobsters, and all blacks and hispanics as gangsters in the popular media, but no one worries that they'll be upset and offended?

I think such things are attrocious. I guess if media just lowers the bar a little more, huh? The funny thing is, they're out to make money and, well, they're doing it. But, here, people are appluading them for it. I won't bit.

Do I think they should be sanctioned? Nope. Do I think racists should be sanctioned for being racist in expression alone? Nope. But I'm not going to clap and praise that they managed to prove that free speech exists. I accepted the existence of free speech at birth.

I am hugely tired of being told that the world needs to pussyfoot about and make sure they don't say anything offensive about one group, when it's fine to spread it around everywhere else. And why? Because if you DON'T pussyfoot around that group, members of it will use violence and you will deserve it. I didn't even say that last bit -- Hezbollah did.

See the difference?

Since the first time it didn't work.

Here is the graph.

Avoid -------------------------------------------------------collective punishment

See all those dashes. They represent the plethora of positions that are not this AND are not avoiding upsetting Muslims. There is a huge difference between pussyfooting around and just being a bigot. Most of us reside there. Come on in. The water's fine.

See, this was meant to show the evil Muslims that you can't push the oppressed Western Press around. Poor Press. Thank God, someone is finally standing up for them and freedom of speech. No one said they can't print these cartoons. I said that they shouldn't do it as collective punishment.

When you drop the strawman that I'm claiming that you must avoid anything, you'll be firmly in the realm of logic and then we can have a REAL debate. How about that?

"Muhammed is a murderous pedophile" is mild to you?

Let me guess, you haven't taken the time to look at the cartoons either? None of them mentions paedophilia, and only two could be interpreted as murderer (the author of one of them has denied that this was his intention).

I have yet to hear of any "criticism" of the founders of any other religion that could even begin to approach the direct vulgarity and implication of "murderous pedophile."

I've already cited "murderous barstard" for Moses. If the Bible said that he slept with little girls then rest assured I'd call him a paedophile too. I don't give any religion a free ride.

Want proof this is just an excuse for the rather regular belief that any evidence of terrorism is an excuse to broadly attack Muslims? This thread. Almost immediately, that Muslims don't deserve to be respected has become the argument of the thread.

What does a discussion of the actions of 3 individuals and the newspaper's reaction to it have to do with an educated criticism of Islam that the newspaper's did NOT engage in. Instead, they took broad and cheap shots. People are trying to justify their bigotry by showing that Muslims don't deserve humanity and respect. Personally, I think everyone does. EVERYONE. I treat individuals like individuals. I'm funny that way.

Let me guess, you haven't taken the time to look at the cartoons either? None of them mentions paedophilia, and only two could be interpreted as murderer (the author of one of them has denied that this was his intention).



I've already cited "murderous barstard" for Moses. If the Bible said that he slept with little girls then rest assured I'd call him a paedophile too. I don't give any religion a free ride.

Dude, you do know that often times people who rape children are not attracted to children and thus not pedophiles, right? You're talking about rapists. Pedophilia is an attraction to children, whether you act on it or not. People who molest children, most specifically adolescent children, are victimizers, rapists, possibly ephebophiles, but not pedophiles.

People are trying to justify their bigotry by showing that Muslims don't deserve humanity and respect.

What bigotry, and who is saying that Muslims don't deserve humanity?

Dude, you do know that often times people who rape children are not attracted to children and thus not pedophiles, right? You're talking about rapists. Pedophilia is an attraction to children, whether you act on it or not. People who molest children, most specifically adolescent children, are victimizers, rapists, possibly ephebophiles, but not pedophiles.

I do not think that "child rapist" sounds much better than "pedophile"...

However, Mohammed did stay married to Aisha and apparantly did love her. It is also quite possible that he had no choice in the matter and had to consume the marriage to have it remain valid (and thereby being able to protect her).

Dude, you do know that often times people who rape children are not attracted to children and thus not pedophiles, right? You're talking about rapists. Pedophilia is an attraction to children, whether you act on it or not. People who molest children, most specifically adolescent children, are victimizers, rapists, possibly ephebophiles, but not pedophiles.
Fine, then, Mohammed was a murdering child molester. There, that sound any better?

I treat individuals like individuals. I'm funny that way.


Freak.

Goddamnit. This isn't an issue of free speech. People who think it is and are "showing" Muslims they won't back down are, imo, retarded. These images offend A LOT of people in a BIG way. This is like if someone wrote an article saying "I hate niggers, kikes and fags and I can't wait til they all die" and then other newspapers see the quote and the massive protests and say "These protesters hate free speech, we'll show them, and re-post for no reason other than to piss people off." Fucking stupidity prevails yet again.

See? I have never never had any Christian pastor, elder or anyone else, tell me not to question the faith. They all told me to do so, because it strengthens it. It produces a strong foundation.
...hence you decided to become a muslim, apparently.

*shrug*. If you want to make someone your example of good living for all generations to come you should expect him to be judged by the social norms in all eras to come. Should be easy for Allah.
Of course you're allowed to be silly and provocative. It's just no point in it - except to insult and provoke.

Even if he is supposed to be an example, he was still human, so to expect him to be an infallible example for all time is silly, as is judging him by the standards and social norms of present day western society.


Debates on the interpretation or on the actual validity and the personalities of Muhammed and Allah ? As far as I know the latter are called blasphemy.
Debating both. The latter is called blasphemy somewhere I'm sure. None I know personally subscribes to that idea though.
Well, unlike other religious leaders, Mohammad's description is quite accurate. You have sex with a 9 year old? You are a paedophile. You kill people who criticize you? You are a murderer. Mohammad did both, so that makes him a murderous paedophile.
Prove that he did have sex with her. No, you can't. You can guess based on writings - but, disregarding that there's nothing to show that his primary sexual desire was towards
young adolescents, you can't prove it. So the only reason to keep saying that is to provoke and/or insult.
Well, people have been forced into hiding after having fatwās placed on their heads for even minor questioning the historical accuracy of the Quran.
And? Would you like to show me that this is a universal islamic thing, and not a local, regional or national thing?

I have yet to hear of any "criticism" of the founders of any other religion that could even begin to approach the direct vulgarity and implication of "murderous pedophile."

Or we could even skip the founder and move straight on to the deity. Richard Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Does this begin to approach the vulgarity of 'murderous paedophile' for you?

What bigotry, and who is saying that Muslims don't deserve humanity?

If you claim the founder of someone's religion was a terrorist, it's likely you will get branded as a bigot.

I don't understand how this demonstrates "freedom of speech." It's not as if the Danish government is trying to shut the paper down. Instead, they are being attacked by a minority group with no real political clout. Pretty bold, Jyllands-Posten.

Dude, you do know that often times people who rape children are not attracted to children and thus not pedophiles, right? You're talking about rapists. Pedophilia is an attraction to children, whether you act on it or not. People who molest children, most specifically adolescent children, are victimizers, rapists, possibly ephebophiles, but not pedophiles.

Well, I seem to remember the Qur'an saying that Mohammed loved Aisha the most, even when she was nine, but I could be mistaken. I guess I could write 'child molester' if you prefer.

Fine, then, Mohammed was a murdering child molester. There, that sound any better?
...you can also add "as was common and legal in those days, and for several centuries after" when it comes to the molestation.

But yeah, that's a tangent.

Good on the Danes.

Edit: MY thread now! MWAHAHAHAHA

Aye, Good on the Danes!

The freaky thing is, LG now has more supporters than Ron Paul. :D

That's not freaky, that's appropriate.

They were 9th century nomadic desert people. Pedophile, molester? Do you know their customs, culture, how they survive, how they treat orphans?

Using 21st century morality and world view to defame their character doesn't make a good argument.

This works both ways of course,... you can't bring 9th century values for usage in the 21st century. Unless of course you're just trying to real hard to impress people with the argumentative skills of a soap box preacher.

You might want to tell the world's 1.4 billion Muslims that...

Why?

I won't go around to Hindus and point and laugh at their holy cows either. Or better yet, carve them up and eat them in front of them.

If you claim the founder of someone's religion was a terrorist, it's likely you will get branded as a bigot.


No one in this thread has actually branded Muhammad as a terrorist, and even if they did that would not be bigoted. It can be argued that the picture is not about Muhammad being a terrorist, but more a commentary of how Muslims view their prophet today etc...

The presidency is just the first step...

LG for President '08
LG for God '12

The freaky thing is, LG now has more supporters than Ron Paul. :D

Even if he is supposed to be an example, he was still human, so to expect him to be an infallible example for all time is silly

You might want to tell the world's 1.4 billion Muslims that...

And? Would you like to show me that this is a universal islamic thing, and not a local, regional or national thing?

It's more of an international thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy

Why?

I won't go around to Hindus and point and laugh at their holy cows either. Or better yet, carve them up and eat them in front of them.

And the presbyterians and other reformed Christians didn't have to go around telling Christians that perhaps the state shouldn't involve itself with religious matters, and vice versa. But you know, it was probably a good idea.

Even if he is supposed to be an example, he was still human, so to expect him to be an infallible example for all time is silly

Oh, agreed. That is one of the reasons I am not a muslim.

Oh, agreed. That is one of the reasons I am not a muslim.

One of the reason I'm not a devout one.

No one in this thread has actually branded Muhammad as a terrorist, and even if they did that would not be bigoted. It can be argued that the picture is not about Muhammad being a terrorist, but more a commentary of how Muslims view their prophet today etc...
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:

Mohammad was a terrorist though! He admits to it:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).


and so is Allah:
Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and
incapacitate them

Qur’an 33:26 “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them.

Ishaq:461 “Muhammad besieged them for twenty-five nights. When the siege became
too severe for them, Allah terrorized them. Then they were told to submit

Well, I seem to remember the Qur'an saying that Mohammed loved Aisha the most, even when she was nine, but I could be mistaken. I guess I could write 'child molester' if you prefer.

It would be more accurate. Also, it would still depend on whether she was adolescent or not. Had she begun puberty? Honestly, I'm not versed enough on Muhammed to know.

It's really a side-point and simply speaks to the general ignorance of so many on this forum, but it doesn't have anything to do with how funny it is that people are justifying this. No one notices that these broad sweeping statements about Muslims are the justification. I love how silly people can be when being bigotted.

What bigotry, and who is saying that Muslims don't deserve humanity?

Hmmm... let's see broad attacks on Muslims, suggesting they implicitely support terrorism and pedophilia. Yeah, what was I thinking.

THe saddest thing about bigots in today's world is that they don't have the courage to simply admit they are bigots.

No one notices that these broad sweeping statements about Muslims are the justification. I love how silly people can be when being bigotted.

And you have yet to show a single sweeping statement posted on this thread about Muslims, rather than comments on Muhammad himself.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:

Mohammad was a terrorist though! He admits to it:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).


and so is Allah:
Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and
incapacitate them

Qur’an 33:26 “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them.

Ishaq:461 “Muhammad besieged them for twenty-five nights. When the siege became
too severe for them, Allah terrorized them. Then they were told to submit

9th century Shock and Awe,... anything new?

...you can also add "as was common and legal in those days, and for several centuries after" when it comes to the molestation.

But yeah, that's a tangent.
My point was more that it doesn't matter what you call it, it's still pretty offensive stuff.

Hmmm... let's see broad attacks on Muslims, suggesting they implicitely support terrorism and pedophilia. Yeah, what was I thinking.

THe saddest thing about bigots in today's world is that they don't have the courage to simply admit they are bigots.

An actual quote would help.

Goddamnit. This isn't an issue of free speech. People who think it is and are "showing" Muslims they won't back down are, imo, retarded. These images offend A LOT of people in a BIG way. This is like if someone wrote an article saying "I hate niggers, kikes and fags and I can't wait til they all die" and then other newspapers see the quote and the massive protests and say "These protesters hate free speech, we'll show them, and re-post for no reason other than to piss people off." Fucking stupidity prevails yet again.

Where in the cartoons does it say "I hate sand niggers, or arabs or dirty muslims, and can't wait til they die"? Your comparison is frail at best.

It would be more accurate. Also, it would still depend on whether she was adolescent or not. Had she begun puberty? Honestly, I'm not versed enough on Muhammed to know.

It's really a side-point and simply speaks to the general ignorance of so many on this forum, but it doesn't have anything to do with how funny it is that people are justifying this. No one notices that these broad sweeping statements about Muslims are the justification. I love how silly people can be when being bigotted.

'Aisha was still playing with dolls. They were six when officially married, and at age nine they had sex to consummate the marriage. Those three years of no sex was filled with Mohammad taking his penis and rubbing it between Aisha's legs. Tell me? Is that the character of a prophet? She was playing with DOLLS, ffs! I don't know many "mature" girls that still play with dolls. What he did was rape, molestation, pedophilia, and so on.

Tell me? Is that the character of a prophet?

I don't know. Why don't you tell me how many prophets you've met and what they were like.

'Aisha was still playing with dolls. They were six when officially married, and at age nine they had sex to consummate the marriage. Those three years of no sex was filled with Mohammad taking his penis and rubbing it between Aisha's legs. Tell me? Is that the character of a prophet? She was playing with DOLLS, ffs! I don't know many "mature" girls that still play with dolls. What he did was rape, molestation, pedophilia, and so on.

Hearsay, strike to object. Then again are there reliable witness that can testify this without any metaphor or poetry?

9th century Shock and Awe,... anything new?

Just showing that Mohammad talked about terrorism. And according to Islam, if Mohammad said it is ok, then its okay.

An actual quote would help.

How about "worshipping a murderous pedophile?" Considering many don't actually believe he was murderous or a pedophile. Considering in many cultures at the time it was considered normal to conceive children at 10 or 12, particularly cultures where life expectancy was low. What we're doing is taking current belief systems and inserting them into an entirely different time. By the same measure, the descendants of Pueblos are celebrating murder and pedophilia, since it was traditional for women to conceive at around 10.

Just showing that Mohammad talked about terrorism. And according to Islam, if Mohammad said it is ok, then its okay.

so you feel comfortable speaking on behalf of all muslims now?

Where in the cartoons does it say "I hate sand niggers, or arabs or dirty muslims, and can't wait til they die"? Your comparison is frail at best.



'Aisha was still playing with dolls. They were six when officially married, and at age nine they had sex to consummate the marriage. Those three years of no sex was filled with Mohammad taking his penis and rubbing it between Aisha's legs. Tell me? Is that the character of a prophet? She was playing with DOLLS, ffs! I don't know many "mature" girls that still play with dolls. What he did was rape, molestation, pedophilia, and so on.

No, not necessarily pedophilia. What you said would certainly make it pedophilia if his prediliction was about children, rather than people who are helpless. I know it seems like a meaningless distinction, but most child molestors are attracted to people who cannot defend themselves, people who are helpless, and it has NOTHING to do with the fact they are children. Pedophiles are attracted to the lack of benefits of puberty.

It's more of an international thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy
Was that work of fiction really a case of "questioning the historical accuracy of the Quran"?
And the presbyterians and other reformed Christians didn't have to go around telling Christians that perhaps the state shouldn't involve itself with religious matters, and vice versa. But you know, it was probably a good idea.
:confused:

My point was more that it doesn't matter what you call it, it's still pretty offensive stuff.
By our present day values yes.

Damn, you should stay away from reading about European nobility - for that matter, don't read about many historical figures, especially the ones that lived more than a thousand years ago.

How about "worshipping a murderous pedophile?" Considering many don't actually believe he was murderous or a pedophile.

Doesn't mean he isn't one.


Considering in many cultures at the time it was considered normal to conceive children at 10 or 12, particularly cultures where life expectancy was low.

True, but not everyone is a cultural relativist, and thus not everyone will think this means you cannot criticize him for it. And this is, again, absolutely miles away from literally dehumanising Muslims, and neither is it bigoted or claiming that this huge population is inferior.


What we're doing is taking current belief systems and inserting them into an entirely different time. By the same measure, the descendants of Pueblos are celebrating murder and pedophilia, since it was traditional for women to conceive at around 10.

Same as above.

No one in this thread has actually branded Muhammad as a terrorist, and even if they did that would not be bigoted. It can be argued that the picture is not about Muhammad being a terrorist, but more a commentary of how Muslims view their prophet today etc...

But it isn't how "Muslims" view their prophet. There's that bigotry again. It's how SOME Muslims view him. Others don't support violence at all. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of bigotry. That would be rational and we can't have that. Where's the rope?

Just showing that Mohammad talked about terrorism. And according to Islam, if Mohammad said it is ok, then its okay.

Hmmm, he also said this on women leaders :
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 709:

Narrated Abu Bakra:

During the days (of the battle) of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a word I had heard from Allah's Apostle after I had been about to join the Companions of Al-Jamal (i.e. the camel) and fight along with them. When Allah's Apostle was informed that the Persians had crowned the daughter of Khosrau as their ruler, he said, "Such people as ruled by a lady will never be successful."

People tend to look on and use this on the misogynistic side (on both sides), then again, it doesn't stop nations with Muslim majority to vote for female leader.

TL;DR : he said many things, the way you want to interpret what he said (and the circumstances) is moot.

By our present day values yes.

Damn, you should stay away from reading about European nobility - for that matter, don't read about many historical figures, especially the ones that lived more than a thousand years ago.
...

Well yes, it was very much Of Its Time. Like everything is. I don't really see what your point is here, though.

Doesn't mean he isn't one.

We're not talking about what he is. We're talking about what they are? If they don't believe he is one, then it isn't what they're worshipping. Again, it's not like I'm hoping for any rational thought here though. Rational thought and bigotry rarely meet.


True, but not everyone is a cultural relativist, and thus not everyone will think this means you cannot criticize him for it. And this is, again, absolutely miles away from literally dehumanising Muslims, and neither is it bigoted or claiming that this huge population is inferior.

Equivocation. It's funny how far you'll go to justify bigotry against Muslims. Tell me again about how they deserve it. I promise not to think it's idiotic. I think treating people as if they don't deserve to be treated based on their individual merits and somehow deserve collective punishment is dehumanizing. I'm just funny that way.



Same as above.

Like I said...

http://www.faqs.org/docs/factbook/flags/da-lgflag.gif

Long live Denmark! You stand for freedom!

No one in this thread has actually branded Muhammad as a terrorist, and even if they did that would not be bigoted. It can be argued that the picture is not about Muhammad being a terrorist, but more a commentary of how Muslims view their prophet today etc...
I was talking about the cartoons, not people in the thread. And you're right, that doesn't mean you are necessarily a bigot. But one shouldn't be surprised if he or she is labeled as one.

Was that work of fiction really a case of "questioning the historical accuracy of the Quran"?


See it more as the Muslim Da vinci Code, he does believe IIRC that Muhammad may have done things like this:

According to it, Muhammad (Mahound in the book) added verses (sura) to the Qur'an accepting three goddesses that used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings. According to the legend, Muhammad later revoked the verses, saying the devil tempted him to utter these lines to appease the Meccans (hence the "Satanic" verses). However, the narrator reveals to the reader that these disputed verses were actually from the mouth of the Archangel Gibreel.

But having a fatwa for even pretending that the above was the case is even worse no?


:confused:


I'm saying its probably better if fundamentalist Islam went away.

Long live Denmark! You stand for freedom!
Yes, well done, you've found a Danish flag, twice. Hurrah, eh?

Was that work of fiction really a case of "questioning the historical accuracy of the Quran"?

:confused:


By our present day values yes.

Damn, you should stay away from reading about European nobility - for that matter, don't read about many historical figures, especially the ones that lived more than a thousand years ago.

Oh, no, if you don't show absolute disdain for everyone from the past, really you support slavery, murder, sexism and all the other things that were normal. Robin Hood and the Merry MEN? Burn that punk. Clearly, he was sexist. Amusingly, if this thread was about France, people wouldn't be bringing up the evils of Louis XIV. Why? Because what the hell is the point? Yes, people did some pretty heinous things. It was what people did. Focusing on the merits of those people isn't the same as supporting those heinous things no matter how badly people want it to be.

But hey, it's been 5 years and the same bigots have been make the same arguments to make themselves feel warm and fuzzy. Muslims don't deserve to be treated as individuals, of course. If they haven't seen reason after all this time, it's not going to change now.

But it isn't how "Muslims" view their prophet. There's that bigotry again. It's how SOME Muslims view him. Others don't support violence at all. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of bigotry. That would be rational and we can't have that. Where's the rope?

We've been through this before. Saying Muslims is not the same as saying all Muslims, just like saying people is not the same as saying all people. Do you honestly believe that I view all Muslims as terrorists.

We've been through this before. Saying Muslims is not the same as saying all Muslims, just like saying people is not the same as saying all people. Do you honestly believe that I view all Muslims as terrorists.

Uh-huh. Black people are criminals. Yep, not racism implied there. How dare anyone suggest otherwise.

...

Well yes, it was very much Of Its Time. Like everything is. I don't really see what your point is here, though.

That making the claim that he was a pedophile or a child molester is pointless, as it adds nothing to any legitimate criticism of the religion, it might be factually wrong, it completely ignores the time he lived in etc.

So in short, it serves no purpose except for provocation and/or insult. Making the claim when debating Islam is pointless, and ignoring the historical connotations is simply ignorant.

We're not talking about what he is. We're talking about what they are? If they don't believe he is one, then it isn't what they're worshipping. Again, it's not like I'm hoping for any rational thought here though. Rational thought and bigotry rarely meet.


I don't understand what you are talking about here. We have (well I haven't really gotten involved that much) been discussing whether Muhammad is a pedophile or child molester or whatever or not. Not what Muslims believe him to be.


Equivocation. It's funny how far you'll go to justify bigotry against Muslims. Tell me again about how they deserve it. I promise not to think it's idiotic. I think treating people as if they don't deserve to be treated based on their individual merits and somehow deserve collective punishment is dehumanizing. I'm just funny that way.


Again I do not understand the message of this nonsensicle rant. Who deserves what? When did I say anyone deserves anything? And whats this crap about collective punishment?

That making the claim that he was a pedophile or a child molester is pointless, as it adds nothing to any legitimate criticism of the religion, it might be factually wrong, it completely ignores the time he lived in etc.

So in short, it serves no purpose except for provocation and/or insult. Making the claim when debating Islam is pointless, and ignoring the historical connotations is simply ignorant.

Oh, stop being all rational and shit. The train is coming through and it's aimed at Muslims of all stripes. They should have known better to send three of theirs after one of ours. Get out of the way.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: you sometimes sicken me

Freedom of speech. If you can draw cartoons poking fun at the Holocaust, then don't be upset when cartoons poke fun of you.

I recommend you watch the South Park episodes on this issue. They demonstrated the hypocrisy of it.

That making the claim that he was a pedophile or a child molester is pointless, as it adds nothing to any legitimate criticism of the religion, it might be factually wrong, it completely ignores the time he lived in etc.

So in short, it serves no purpose except for provocation and/or insult. Making the claim when debating Islam is pointless, and ignoring the historical connotations is simply ignorant.
I'm not disputing that, I was disputing that calling him a paedophile was somehow made less bad by replacing it with something like "child molester" instead...

I don't know. Why don't you tell me how many prophets you've met and what they were like.

Prophets are holy men and women who are mouth peices for God, to bring the people back into communion with Him. THey are pure, holy, repentant people.

Hearsay, strike to object. Then again are there reliable witness that can testify this without any metaphor or poetry?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_nLuWLeRLE

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."


Here is the kicker though, about playing with dolls:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)

Not yet the age of puberty! PEDOPHILE ALERT!

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10197

Uh-huh. Black people are criminals. Yep, not racism implied there. How dare anyone suggest otherwise.

If by Black people you mean some black people, then no it's not racist. When someone says to me: "People went and protested Scientology the other day, or, Christians were protesting the BBC the other day", I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that he meant that every person on earth was protesting Scientology or that every Christian on earth was protesting the BBC. But that's what you have done, but oh well there are misunderstandings sometimes. So now that I have shown you what I meant, there is no need to take this further right? Whats the point in claiming that I am saying all Muslims are such and such, when I am explicetly stating that not all Muslims are such and such, even if at one point you thought I did? So lets just drop this digression. If you respond again by claiming that I really secretly did mean that all Muslims are terrorists, I am stopping this debate.

That making the claim that he was a pedophile or a child molester is pointless, as it adds nothing to any legitimate criticism of the religion, it might be factually wrong, it completely ignores the time he lived in etc.

So in short, it serves no purpose except for provocation and/or insult. Making the claim when debating Islam is pointless, and ignoring the historical connotations is simply ignorant.

It's not pointless, it's routinely done as part of debate all the time. I mean loads of people on this forum have attacked Christianity because Jesus vaguely supported the laws of the old testament (basically attacking him for being a Jew), and thus supporting the stoning of adulterers etc... People will respond claiming that this is what was cultural norm of the time, others will then go on saying that this does not absolve him from criticism, since it's still part of doctrine, and is still supposed to be respected today, regardless of whether it is merely echoing the cultural norms of that time.

I'm not disputing that, I was disputing that calling him a paedophile was somehow made less bad by replacing it with something like "child molester" instead...
Les bad? I don't know about that. More factually accurate though, judging by the various quotes provided by an agressive Zilam.

See it more as the Muslim Da vinci Code, he does believe IIRC that Muhammad may have done things like this:
Heh. I laughed quietly at those who took the Da Vinci Code seriously, but I get your point. Still, it's not quite clear...
But having a fatwa for even pretending that the above was the case is even worse no?
...and then we have to go into the whole debacle about whether or not the Fatwa was religiously or politically motivated, if Khomeini was authorized to make such a fatwa, about the criticism leveled against it by other muslim scholars. Another tangent, really.


I'm saying its probably better if fundamentalist Islam went away.
That I agree with.

Oh, stop being all rational and shit. The train is coming through and it's aimed at Muslims of all stripes. They should have known better to send three of theirs after one of ours. Get out of the way.
:p

*Hobbles away*

-snip-

Still inconclusive evidence on the Muhammad as person. You really want me to believe that this documents aren't some kind of 9th recruitment pamphlet to encourage membership to the then fledgling religion?

Pshaw, anyways, does consummate always means that sex is involved? Or is it just ... civilized western perception that puts it that way?

I don't understand what you are talking about here. We have (well I haven't really gotten involved that much) been discussing whether Muhammad is a pedophile or child molester or whatever or not. Not what Muslims believe him to be.



Again I do not understand the message of this nonsensicle rant. Who deserves what? When did I say anyone deserves anything? And whats this crap about collective punishment?

Who do you think the show of solidarity was against? What do you think it was? There were three PEOPLE who did this. They were caught and are being punished. No further action necessary. But catching those individuals wasn't enough. Nope. It was necessary to teach a lesson to other Muslims.

If a Japanese guy plotted to murder a guy for having cartoons of Japanese people looking like monkeys, I wonder if the thread about it would be all about how flawed Japanese people are? Or perhaps we'd all just point out THAT Japanese guy was murderous and move along.

This is thread is about what's wrong with Muslims and their Prophet precisely because it's acceptable bigotry. Sorry, I don't accept it. You do. I get it. It's been years. This isn't new information. But I'm not going to pretend like you're being rational. You're not. It's just sad you don't have the backbone ot admit what it is though. I'm tired of that part.

That making the claim that he was a pedophile or a child molester is pointless, as it adds nothing to any legitimate criticism of the religion, it might be factually wrong, it completely ignores the time he lived in etc.

So in short, it serves no purpose except for provocation and/or insult. Making the claim when debating Islam is pointless, and ignoring the historical connotations is simply ignorant.
I would agree IF the religion did not consider him a faultless spokesman for God and role model to all people for all times to come, rather than just a person who had some good insights for his particular time although they are quite outmoded now.

Prophets are holy men and women who are mouth peices for God, to bring the people back into communion with Him. THey are pure, holy, repentant people.

And you know this...how? First hand experience with all the prophets you know?

Or do you just presume to speak for god?

I would agree IF the religion did not consider him a faultless spokesman for God and role model to all people for all times to come, rather than just a person who had some good insights for his particular time although they are quite outmoded now.

and again, I have to ask who elected you to speak on behalf of all muslims?

and again, I have to ask who elected you to speak on behalf of all muslims?

^This. I love the No Real Scotsman arguments. They're beautiful. (No, this isn't one, but is there anyone who doesn't see it coming?)

Who do you think the show of solidarity was against? What do you think it was? There were three PEOPLE who did this. They were caught and are being punished. No further action necessary. But catching those individuals wasn't enough. Nope. It was necessary to teach a lesson to other Muslims.

If a Japanese guy plotted to murder a guy for having cartoons of Japanese people looking like monkeys, I wonder if the thread about it would be all about how flawed Japanese people are? Or perhaps we'd all just point out THAT Japanese guy was murderous and move along.


Ok, I see your point with this (I don't actually think its a good idea for the newspapers to publish those cartoons anyway), however I was trying to address your claims about bigotry in this very thread. However, I don't believe they are publishing the cartoons to collectively punish all Muslims, but to express and re-affirm their freedom of speech.


This is thread is about what's wrong with Muslims and their Prophet precisely because it's acceptable bigotry.

Could you rephrase this?

and again, I have to ask who elected you to speak on behalf of all muslims?

Someone who does not believe that Muhammad's revelations are the Word of God, or that Muhammad was the final prophet, to all subsequent peoples until
the end of time, by definition is not a "Muslim".

Quoted for fucking truth. It's possible to say "If Moses existed as portrayed in the Bible then he was an evil, murderous barstard" without saying (or implying) "Jews are non-human". I'm quite open in saying that large portions of the Tanach (or 'Old Testament' as the Christians call it) are sick, and yet I've never been accused of anti-Semitism because I criticise the beliefs, not the people.

Some people seem to have trouble grasping that distinction when it comes to Islam, and as I've already pointed out the cartoons are relatively mild, and far less rude about Mohammed than, for example, The Life of Brian or Jerry Springer: The Opera were towards Jesus.

And again... Christianity and Jesus are criticized all the time, and no one feels the need to kill any one over it. Has anyone put Monty Python on a deathlist? Yet Salman Rushdiie was on one for Satanic Verses, was he not? Is Dan Brown looking over his shoulder after The Da Vinci code? Should Mel Gibson fear Jewish reprisals for The Passion of the Christ?

Almighty? I thought you were only running for President! :D

Why would I settle for a stressful position of authority over whining masses, when I can do whatever the hell I want and it's "God's Will"? :D

Ok, I see your point with this (I don't actually think its a good idea for the newspapers to publish those cartoons anyway), however I was trying to address your claims about bigotry in this very thread. However, I don't believe they are publishing the cartoons to collectively punish all Muslims, but to express and re-affirm their freedom of speech.

Uh-huh. Why? No one infringed upon it. They people who did it are being punished and can't hurt them anymore? They can reaffirm their freedom of speech right to those Muslims. Rather, they managed to send that message out to all Muslims, rather than just those Muslims.

Could you rephrase this?

What percentage of this thread is focused on the problems with Islam itself or its prophet? What does that have to do with these three individuals? People regularly argue that bigotry is dying out, but all we've done is move it around. For some people it's still the same old groups, Jews, blacks, women, etc. For some it's so-called "reverse" bigotry, like when my brother-in-law's mother says some wildly racist stuff about white people and occasionally says reverse racism is justified to even the score. Or when women generalize about men in all sorts of insulting ways. Or the treatment of Muslims.

There seems to something pretty ingrained in us that makes it so that it's difficult even for those of us who believe in equality to prevent just falling to flailing at some group we've decided is an acceptable target. Look around. In a thread recently, it went from a girl talking about getting beat up to a bunch of flamebait about the poor, oppressed white heterosexual males. The thread of course had nothing to do with that, but it's okay to just wildly generalize if you aim at the right groups. And don't worry, because you can justify it.

Why is it okay to generalize about white people? Because some other white people have been president or owned slaves or killed native americans or created an empire, etc. Why is it okay to generalize about men? Because all the presidents have been men or owned land or CEOs. Why Muslims? Muhammed was a pedophile, some muslims were terrorists, etc. Why Jews? Because other Jews created Isreal or own media, etc.

There are always reasons and the people using them always think it's okay. It's not. Ever. Bigotry can be justified. It's never right.

We're not talking about what he is. We're talking about what they are? If they don't believe he is one, then it isn't what they're worshipping. Again, it's not like I'm hoping for any rational thought here though. Rational thought and bigotry rarely meet.




Equivocation. It's funny how far you'll go to justify bigotry against Muslims. Tell me again about how they deserve it. I promise not to think it's idiotic. I think treating people as if they don't deserve to be treated based on their individual merits and somehow deserve collective punishment is dehumanizing. I'm just funny that way.





Like I said...

Funny, the only person I recall who said anything about anyone getting what they deserve was Hezbollah.

And again... Christianity and Jesus are criticized all the time, and no one feels the need to kill any one over it. Has anyone put Monty Python on a deathlist? Yet Salman Rushdiie was on one for Satanic Verses, was he not?

Give or take a few hundred years from now, there'd be someone using the lines along "NOBODY, expects the intifada!"

It's not like Christianity never puts anyone on their deathlist for heresy, then again after a few centuries, everyone got a laugh out of it.

Uh-huh. Why? No one infringed upon it. They people who did it are being punished and can't hurt them anymore? They can reaffirm their freedom of speech right to those Muslims. Rather, they managed to send that message out to all Muslims, rather than just those Muslims.

Well again, I never initially supported printing these images, so lets just drop this part.


What percentage of this thread is focused on the problems with Islam itself or its prophet?

A large chunk.

What does that have to do with these three individuals?

Nothing, it's a digression. So?


People regularly argue that bigotry is dying out, but all we've done is move it around. For some people it's still the same old groups, Jews, blacks, women, etc. For some it's so-called "reverse" bigotry, like when my brother-in-law's mother says some wildly racist stuff about white people and occasionally says reverse racism is justified to even the score. Or when women generalize about men in all sorts of insulting ways. Or the treatment of Muslims.

There seems to something pretty ingrained in us that makes it so that it's difficult even for those of us who believe in equality to prevent just falling to flailing at some group we've decided is an acceptable target. Look around. In a thread recently, it went from a girl talking about getting beat up to a bunch of flamebait about the poor, oppressed white heterosexual males. The thread of course had nothing to do with that, but it's okay to just wildly generalize if you aim at the right groups. And don't worry, because you can justify it.

Why is it okay to generalize about white people? Because some other white people have been president or owned slaves or killed native americans or created an empire, etc. Why is it okay to generalize about men? Because all the presidents have been men or owned land or CEOs.

This is all very good, but I don't think any generalisations about all Muslims are actually present in this thread.

Why Muslims? Muhammed was a pedophile, some muslims were terrorists, etc.

Why anything. Islam, whether you like it or not, plays a massive part in current affairs, so I don't see a problem with talking about it critically every so often. Judaism, Hinduism and other religions do have an influence on current affairs, but not as much as Islam, thus it is not discussed as much.


There are always reasons and the people using them always think it's okay. It's not. Ever. Bigotry can be justified. It's never right.

But where is the bigotry in criticising Muhammad, or the beliefs of Islam? You still haven't shown me.

Give or take a few hundred years from now, there'd be someone using the lines along "NOBODY, expects the intifada!"

It's not like Christianity never puts anyone on their deathlist for heresy, then again after a few centuries, everyone got a laugh out of it.

Christianity doesn't need a special death list. We have a lot of world power. It's a different perspective. Meanwhile, the nebulous Christianity or Islam, doesn't exist. It's a group of sects and individuals, and only a fraction every does the kind of thing you're talking about.

Do you think its OK for them to blow up embassys?

Bloody good. I can only hope this pisses off sufficient numbers of Muslims so as to create another disorder from which they emerge unfavourably.

Well, one honestly shouldn't look at the person or their actions, to decide whether or not their religion is unfavourable or not. All you have to do with Islam is read about its basic belief system, and you will realize how stinky it is.

These are through page 2. Shall I keep going? Who do you think "them" is? You have the talk about how "they" blow up embassies. You have the hope this will incite more violence and (if I may extrapolate) destroy them. You have the general broad swipe at how "stinky" Islam is. Of course, no need for an intellectual point about what those 'basic beliefs" are. Just a broad attack. It was an attempt at valid criticism. None of them were.

If a Christian gets caught killing some one, Hyde, you don't see the bigotry in going, "well, one needn't look at this individual to see the problem with Christians, just look at how fucked up Christianity is."

Give or take a few hundred years from now, there'd be someone using the lines along "NOBODY, expects the intifada!"

It's not like Christianity never puts anyone on their deathlist for heresy, then again after a few centuries, everyone got a laugh out of it.

Find in the bible where it says to put such people on the deathlist? You can't do it! Its not there! So, can you call them real Christians?

Anyways, i wanted to respond to something you said earlier, about the authenticity of those hadiths over aisha. They were narrarated by her, and since she was the favorite of mo-mo's wives, why would she feel the need to lie about what he did to her?

These are through page 2. Shall I keep going? Who do you think "them" is? You have the talk about how "they" blow up embassies. You have the hope this will incite more violence and (if I may extrapolate) destroy them. You have the general broad swipe at how "stinky" Islam is. Of course, no need for an intellectual point about what those 'basic beliefs" are. Just a broad attack. It was an attempt at valid criticism. None of them were.

If a Christian gets caught killing some one, Hyde, you don't see the bigotry in going, "well, one needn't look at this individual to see the problem with Christians, just look at how fucked up Christianity is."

I can call Islam stinky and not say anything about the followers. For example, I see atheists on here all the time talk about how stupid Christianity is, but are they calling all christians stupid? No, they are saying the system itself is stupid. Its far different than what you are trying to make it into.

Hopefully your next attempt to make us look like boogie men will be more fruitful next time.

the favorite of mo-mo's wives

Trust me, we all get that you are even more anti-Islam than you were pro-Islam not so long ago, but is it REALLY necessary to be this disrespectful when discussing Mohammed?

I can call Islam stinky and not say anything about the followers. For example, I see atheists on here all the time talk about how stupid Christianity is, but are they calling all christians stupid? No, they are saying the system itself is stupid. Its far different than what you are trying to make it into.

Hopefully your next attempt to make us look like boogie men will be more fruitful next time.

What does calling Islam stinky have to do with the topic? You took the fact that these guys were Muslims as an opportunity to criticise Islam just like the papers did? It's bigotry.

EDIT: Snipped the rest. That was unnecessary.

Find in the bible where it says to put such people on the deathlist? You can't do it! Its not there! So, can you call them real Christians?

Anyways, i wanted to respond to something you said earlier, about the authenticity of those hadiths over aisha. They were narrarated by her, and since she was the favorite of mo-mo's wives, why would she feel the need to lie about what he did to her?

There are all kinds of people who are to be put to death according to the Bible. However, this isn't about Islam or Christianity. This about three INDIVIDUALS and how people are so quick to use it as an excuse for bigotry.

No, see you always get your panties in a bunch when someone makes an argument against Islam

I generally get my panties in a bunch when bigots spread hateful, ignorant generalizations for the purpose of demonizing an ethnic and/or religious group. See, perhaps you learned some other lesson from WWII, but what I learned was that that sort of thing is hateful and dangerous.

, and your arguments suffer greatly when you are in that berserker state of mind.

Oh, my poor arguments. You can weep for them just as well as you can completely misunderstand them, I'm sure.

I am sure your mindset is something like so: "They are talking about my beloved Muslims! OH NOES! I must defend them. But how? I know! I'll bring up Nazism which has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand! Yes, that will defend my beloved muslims!"

What an interesting and delightful little fantasy you have, Zilam. But what you've just done here is basically say, "You're a Muslim-lover!" Like that does anything but show your own bigotry.

Everyone here can see it, Zilam, except your fellow bigots who enjoy your shared delusion.

Unfortunately for you, your using of the swastika to take place of the images of the so-called prophet brings up a very good point; both are symbols of hate and intolerance, with the former being a symbol of nationalistic hatred towards jews, gypsies, and so forth, and the latter being a picture of a man who preached a very similar message of nationalistic dominance over so called inferior groups, such as the jews, pagans and christians.

See - you completely missed the point. You were too busy slobbering in your stew of Muslim-hating to think. Allow me to explain so you can quit derailing the thread with anti-Islamic propaganda from Stormfront.

The swastika is banned. This is merely one example of a censorship of "freedom of the press," which the OP claims is something the newspapers in European nations are showing solidarity in support for. Now how can they be so committed that they will fight loudly for one freedom (freedom to publish images of Mohammed) but not for any others? This is a rather specific "freedom of the press" and not a general one, so we can quit making these people out to be Champions of Freedom.

Images of Mohammed are not banned however, so you bringing up shit about how evil Mohammed was doesn't address the point at all and, as I said, only derails the thread with yet more Muslim-bashing from your kind. But that's what you want, isn't it?

Where war is concerned, it is my understanding that the Qu'ran permits violence as a response to aggression from another faith or state; this seems wholly reasonable, and far more appealling than the "turn the other cheek" tripe espoused by Christians.

The turn of the cheek "tripe" as you call it, refers to a personal situation of hatred and abuse. Mainly for Christian's who are spreading the word of God.

Where in the cartoons does it say "I hate sand niggers, or arabs or dirty muslims, and can't wait til they die"? Your comparison is frail at best.

Do you not get that these cartoons represent something worse in many ways than if they had just called Muslims camel jockeys and the like? Any images of the Prophet even presenting him in the best of lights would be highly offensive, but then to draw with a bomb in his turbin and other things is a kin to the most disguisting, hateful article being printed and reprinted for nothing more than shear spite. I find it appaling that so many would condone this.

Further, free speech comes with responsibility. Just as no one in their right mind would walk down the street screaming "fuck, ****, ******, etc" or yell fire in a crowed theatre, people should think twice about printing such things.

Still inconclusive evidence on the Muhammad as person. You really want me to believe that this documents aren't some kind of 9th recruitment pamphlet to encourage membership to the then fledgling religion?

Pshaw, anyways, does consummate always means that sex is involved? Or is it just ... civilized western perception that puts it that way?

There are many Hadith which are contradictory to Sahih's, and so I have asked Zilam before to prove the reliability of the Hadith, which has not yet been proven.

There were no children from the marriage, and most scholars say that Aisha was a virgin.

Oh, agreed. That is one of the reasons I am not a muslim.

One of the reason why I won't be part of any organized religion. While every religion have some merits, they insist that we swallow everything they offer as holy truth.

Find in the bible where it says to put such people on the deathlist? You can't do it! Its not there! So, can you call them real Christians?

Here you go...
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Here you go...

Yes, and truthfully -- when was that last enforced that you know of?

Yes, and truthfully -- when was that last enforced that you know of?

Certainly not anytime recently, but Zilam did claim that it wasn't there at all.

Yes, and truthfully -- when was that last enforced that you know of?

It isn't, but many, many Muslims would never do any of things quote from their book. Are they responsible for other Muslims or is it possible there is more to this than just their religious book?

Certainly not anytime recently, but Zilam did claim that it wasn't there at all.

Ya, you might've noticed me pointing out a crying tree is no more unbelievable than a talking burning bush. ;)

If by Black people you mean some black people, then no it's not racist. When someone says to me: "People went and protested Scientology the other day, or, Christians were protesting the BBC the other day", I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that he meant that every person on earth was protesting Scientology or that every Christian on earth was protesting the BBC. But that's what you have done, but oh well there are misunderstandings sometimes. So now that I have shown you what I meant, there is no need to take this further right? Whats the point in claiming that I am saying all Muslims are such and such, when I am explicetly stating that not all Muslims are such and such, even if at one point you thought I did? So lets just drop this digression. If you respond again by claiming that I really secretly did mean that all Muslims are terrorists, I am stopping this debate.

Give up man. There is no point in arguing with the likes of "Oh you must be an anti-muslim bigot" when you are really not. Expect to get the coveted Kinchiteer title from Gauthier with some 12V876716! thrown in. :p

On the other hand we have folks like New Mittani. (*shudder*)

You get caught in between these two types of idiots. Hard to debate reasonably without either called a apologist dhimmi or an islamophobic bigot.

In response to the Danish security services foiling an alleged plot to assassinate the artist behind one of the Mohammed cartoons (the one with the bomb-turban), newspapers across Europe are reprinting the cartoons to demonstrate their dedication to free speech and their disgust at a plot to kill an innocent seventy-three year old.



The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/13/muhammadcartoons)

The Danish press is showing true commitment to freedom of speech, and even papers who declined to publish the cartoons last time have decided to show demonstrate their rejection of censorship and intimidation:



Source (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jakob_illeborg/2008/02/the_prophet_cartoon_crisis_part_two.html)

This comes at a particularly significant time for the UK as we're on the brink of abolishing blasphemy as a criminal offence. I hope at least one British newspaper demonstrates their commitment to freedom of speech, but I doubt any of them have the guts.


Excellent. I am very glad that the media has decided to take this track. As we all know there doesn't have to be any reason for radical muslims to get pissed and kill people or riot or cause general mayhem, so a cartoon is nothing more than an excuse. Print them all 7 days a week. No one should errantly believe they can stifle freedom of speech.

The swastika is banned. <snipped>

Only in Europe. Europeans don't go around telling other countries not to use swastika.

Similarly, Islamic blasphemy laws are for muslims. These laws hold in sharia run countries. Not in European countries.

It isn't, but many, many Muslims would never do any of things quote from their book. Are they responsible for other Muslims or is it possible there is more to this than just their religious book?

You may have noticed that what I have been arguing all along is not the merit of the book, nor of the religion, and that I have not spoken disrespectfully about the prophet, but merely observed that there appears to be an attitude that not only can you criticize other groups but you better NOT criticize anything to do with Islam because, as Hezbollah pointed out before me, you're going to get a violent reaction and you're going to "deserve it".

Only in Europe.Only explicitely in Austria and Germany, I believe.

Um, again, broad brushes. Nothing like avoiding treating individuals like *gasp* individuals. Quick tell me all about how black people are criminals and basketball players. Oh, right, right, you get a free pass with religion. Bigotry about religions isn't REALLY bigotry.

Stop answering for others and let them answer your questions. Try to practice what you preach ("treating individuals as individuals").

You may have noticed that what I have been arguing all along is not the merit of the book, nor of the religion, and that I have not spoken disrespectfully about the prophet, but merely observed that there appears to be an attitude that not only can you criticize other groups but you better NOT criticize anything to do with Islam because, as Hezbollah pointed out before me, you're going to get a violent reaction and you're going to "deserve it".

If you think about it, that is possibly more disrespectful of muslims than the first set of people.

The latter types are effectively saying "muslims are violent people not to be offended, because once they get offended they become violent...since they cannot control themselves and protest in a civilised manner". In a way that is disrespectful in itself.

you know whats gonna happen: arabs get pissed, more attacks in europe, refusal to sell oil to the danes, you guys get that instead, AQ has more rhetoric and possibly more followers, they are just adding fuel to the flame, i support freedom of speech, but when it is sensible, for example, if they put swatski and spoke about Mein Kampf, and the guy got attacked what would your response have been? i thought you to be more sensible *sighs*

The reason a newspaper will not print swastikas is they will likely lose their customer base, but if someone wants to say something important about Hitler or WWII, even if it's something you don't want to hear, they still have a right to not be attacked physically for that claim. That's not to say he's not horribly wrong, that's not to say you shouldn't tear apart at his ideas or his intentions, that's not to say you should agree with him, but people should not be threatened physically for any idea, even if it's a bad one. If we cannot protect our own citizens, there is something horribly wrong with this Western World. It's bad enough that Americans can't walk their city streets at night anymore, now do we want a world where we can't speak? A world where we have to comply to what a group of individuals deem "appropriate" at the end of a gun barrel because they might get offended?

Now keep in mind there is a difference between what I speak of and conspiracy - obviously you do not have the right to plot and plan to do something to terrible, including for an idea. But the last time I checked, this man was doing no such thing, and I am glad these newspapers have taken a strong stand with their nation in protecting it's freedoms. Personally, I thought the cartoons were of poor quality, just of the ones I've seen, but the fact that they are threatened, banned, blacklisted by a group of armed men gives them a power they would otherwise not have and I believe they now represent something that has to be protected.

You may have noticed that what I have been arguing all along is not the merit of the book, nor of the religion, and that I have not spoken disrespectfully about the prophet, but merely observed that there appears to be an attitude that not only can you criticize other groups but you better NOT criticize anything to do with Islam because, as Hezbollah pointed out before me, you're going to get a violent reaction and you're going to "deserve it".

You were responding to an argument against someone else. The argument wasn't for you. You asked, I told you the point.

You continue to miss the point. Some people do say that, but most of us are saying that it's one thing to be willing to criticise Islam. It's a whole other thing to use 3 idiots as just another excuse to insult them. Everybody is just so happy there's another thread where they can explain all the evils of the Muslims.

These newspapers aren't punishing these 3. These 3 are already being punished. These 3 already failed to stifle their freedoms. But they used these 3 as an excuse to insult all Muslims and, frankly, I have as little time for that as every other kind of bigotry. You keep throwing up that strawman about how it's okay when it's Christians. It's not. I've said it's not. But, hey, if that's all ya got.

Stop answering for others and let them answer your questions. Try to practice what you preach ("treating individuals as individuals").

Um, you don't really know what that means, do you?

There is a difference between God making something talk, and objects talking on their own. God as a burning bush, I can understand. Date palm crying because it Mohammad decided to use a pulpit, I cannot understand.

Please. If you are taking the 'rational' approach, then both are quite silly. All religious mythologies are.

Paraphrasing a comedian (forgot the name)

Moses: A burning bush talked to me and gave me the ten commandments.

Guy: Su..uh..re. Was it really a burning bush or were you burning some bush? ;)

Actually,even in Islam, Prophet esa, which is losely based on Jesus, is still higher and better than mohammad.

Isa is Jesus. Just like how Yusuf is Joseph, Ibrahim is Abraham, Sulayman is Solomon etc. The Isa referred to in the Qur'an is Jesus.

No, the Qur'an does not hold one prophet over the other. Isa is one among the 124,000 prophets sent to the world.

On the topic.
In a weird way (this is my own belief), muslims commit idolatry by this veneration of Muhammed.

Jews do that too. Typing G_d for God. They do mean to write God and it is quite contrary to the idea by putting G_d instead of writing God.

This utter veneration of Muhammed is kinda contrary to islamic principles of non-objectification of the prophets.

Um, you don't really know what that means, do you?

Hey, you did not answer for me. Thank you.

If you think about it, that is possibly more disrespectful of muslims than the first set of people.

The latter types are effectively saying "muslims are violent people not to be offended, because once they get offended they become violent...since they cannot control themselves and protest in a civilised manner". In a way that is disrespectful in itself.

No, they aren't. They're saying that we already know that some Muslims will react violently to such things. It's not about deserving it. However, if you walk into some areas that are poor, predominantly black and have gangs, and you yell out "******", people would be right to treat you like you're an idiot. See, not all black people have to be poor, or in gangs or violent, for that to end up badly. All you need is one who heard you.

All it takes is one offended person to bomb, not every Muslim. That there are some Muslims who are willing to bomb is not an opinion or a racist claim, it's a fact.

-Jesus Christ, who, unlike the authors of Exodus, actually is God.
No, the authors of the New Testament.

You can’t have it both ways, claiming that the OT is merely mortal mistakes and that the NT is direct quotes from the divine.

Hey, you did not answer for me. Thank you.

Do me a favor. Look up 'rhetorical question" and learn about "rhetoric". It happens in debate. Quit complaining and act like you have a rational point.

You notice that rhetorical question neither of us answered. You know why? Because it's a rhetorical question. (See what I did there?)

Here you go...

"The Commandments were made for man, not man for the Commandments."

"...you [The Pharisees] who are so quick to condemn them, but will not lift a finger to help them..."

"Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

"So I say you must forgive him 77 times!"

-Jesus Christ, who, unlike the authors of Exodus, actually is God.

So yes, you cannot be a Christian and keep the penalties listed in Exodus, or even keep the attitude behind those penalties. A Christian is a follower of Christ, not the old testament.

Keep in mind that those who executed Jesus, and those he stood against for his entire time on Earth, were those who represented the very texts are you quoting...

"The Commandments were made for man, not man for the Commandments."

"...you [The Pharisees] who are so quick to condemn them, but will not lift a finger to help them..."

"Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

"So I say you must forgive him 77 times!"

-Jesus Christ, who, unlike the authors of Exodus, actually is God.

So yes, you cannot be a Christian and keep the penalties listed in Exodus, or even keep the attitude behind those penalties. A Christian is a follower of Christ, not the old testament.

Keep in mind that those who executed Jesus, and those he stood against for his entire time on Earth, were those who represented the very texts are you quoting...

So half the bible has been sullied by the interpretation of humans and the other half hasn't? I'd like to take this opportunity to point out to you that both the OT & NT were written by men, so if one is wrong based on the fact that it was written by men, then there is a chance that the second is also wrong.

If the point is to show that they will not be intimidated by threats of violence, I support this act by the newspapers. If the point was to be insulting out of spite, I don't.

I have only one thing to say to this thread: As-Salamu Alaykum.

No, the authors of the New Testament.

You can’t have it both ways, claiming that the OT is merely mortal mistakes and that the NT is direct quotes from the divine.

So half the bible has been sullied by the interpretation of humans and the other half hasn't? I'd like to take this opportunity to point out to you that both the OT & NT were written by men, so if one is wrong based on the fact that it was written by men, then there is a chance that the second is also wrong.

Sorry I should have brought this up. Another thing Jesus said:

"[With regards to prophecies] know a true by it's fruits. That which produces good fruit is a good tree, that which produces bad fruit should be chopped up and thrown in to the fire."

Basically, if the results of a prophecy are bad, it is therefore not a prophecy as the results of the word of God cannot be wrong. If your "true believers" are condemning people, spurring hatred, inciting violence, not doing anything productive with their lives, and "not lifting a finger to help them." It is clear that the prophecy they are following is bad.

This works logically because assuming a being like God exists who is perfect in both effect and intention and all-powerful, he will not create laws on earth that make no sense and serve to help no one, as that would be an imperfection of intention. And insofar as the New Testament has actually been followed (excluding folks like the Homophobes and the Catholic Church who clearly did not follow the Golden Rule or the Great Commandments), the fruits have been very good.

And even when the fruits haven't been good, it is clear that these bad apples would have committed their crimes in the name of someone else. After all, while Christianity has had it's share of religious wars, who hasn't? And name one "religious" war where there wasn't something at stake besides religion.

Sorry I should have brought this up. Another thing Jesus said:

"[With regards to prophecies] know a true by it's fruits. That which produces good fruit is a good tree, that which produces bad fruit should be chopped up and thrown in to the fire."

Basically, if the results of a prophecy are bad, it is therefore not a prophecy as the results of the word of God cannot be wrong. If your "true believers" are condemning people, spurring hatred, inciting violence, not doing anything productive with their lives, and "not lifting a finger to help them." It is clear that the prophecy they are following is bad.

This works logically because assuming a being like God exists who is perfect in both effect and intention and all-powerful, he will not create laws on earth that make no sense and serve to help no one, as that would be an imperfection of intention. And insofar as the New Testament has actually been followed (excluding folks like the Homophobes and the Catholic Church who clearly did not follow the Golden Rule or the Great Commandments), the fruits have been very good.

And even when the fruits haven't been good, it is clear that these bad apples would have committed their crimes in the name of someone else. After all, while Christianity has had it's share of religious wars, who hasn't? And name one "religious" war where there wasn't something at stake besides religion.


Your logic is so circular that I got slightly dizzy just trying to read this mess.

So half the bible has been sullied by the interpretation of humans and the other half hasn't? I'd like to take this opportunity to point out to you that both the OT & NT were written by men, so if one is wrong based on the fact that it was written by men, then there is a chance that the second is also wrong.

It's not just half: there are plenty bits of the Bible that have been ruined by the mortal men who wrote them.
Coincidentally, they are all the parts I find difficult to follow. Funny how that works.

...
After all, while Christianity has had it's share of religious wars, who hasn't? And name one "religious" war where there wasn't something at stake besides religion.

And I would ask the same to people who make claims about Islam supporting violence.

I have only one thing to say to this thread: As-Salamu Alaykum.
Wa Alaykum As-Salam.

OP: Good. Maybe now the muslims will get over themselves and realize that they are no more special than anyone else. However, I don't think it's likely.

wa-Rahmat-Allah wa-Barakat-hu

OP: Good. Maybe now the muslims will get over themselves and realize that they are no more special than anyone else. However, I don't think it's likely.

There will always be people who complain. Uptight christians complained about the chocolate Jesus. How the fuck can you object to a chocolate Jesus??? So what if it was naked and anatomically correct? :p

However, no amount of protests, violent or otherwise can be used as leverage to pressure governments into limiting free speech. The clowns won't stand for it. *nod*

No, they aren't. They're saying that we already know that some Muslims will react violently to such things. It's not about deserving it. However, if you walk into some areas that are poor, predominantly black and have gangs, and you yell out "******", people would be right to treat you like you're an idiot. See, not all black people have to be poor, or in gangs or violent, for that to end up badly. All you need is one who heard you.

All it takes is one offended person to bomb, not every Muslim. That there are some Muslims who are willing to bomb is not an opinion or a racist claim, it's a fact.

Why would some muslims react violently to such things?

Is somebody an islamophobic bigot if he asks these questions?

Why are somebody assuming that some muslims will react with violence?

Is that person not being islamophobic?

If somebody calls me by racial epithets, I don't react violently. But if you are saying that blacks would, aren't you being racist by that assumption?

Do me a favor. Look up 'rhetorical question" and learn about "rhetoric". It happens in debate. Quit complaining and act like you have a rational point.

You notice that rhetorical question neither of us answered. You know why? Because it's a rhetorical question. (See what I did there?)

give me a break. You go ahead and lump everybody as bigots and proceed to answer in "this is what you are thinking..this is what you really mean to say..this is what you...that is what you..." and then you make grand statements on how you treat individuals as individuals blah blah.

I could really do you a favor and ask you to quit complaining on how people are being bigots when they are not and if not for you, the knight in shining armor, all muslims would be dead because of us evil bigots dishing out collective punishment. How about that?

There will always be people who complain. Uptight christians complained about the chocolate Jesus. How the fuck can you object to a chocolate Jesus??? So what if it was naked and anatomically correct? :p

On the other side of that, what chocolate company would make a confection shaped like a naked man? I'd never be able to begin eating it.

On the other side of that, what chocolate company would make a confection shaped like a naked man? I'd never be able to begin eating it.

Just close your eyes and pretend you're eating a chocolate woman. :D

On the other side of that, what chocolate company would make a confection shaped like a naked man? I'd never be able to begin eating it.

Maybe if christ had been a woman?

wa-Rahmat-Allah wa-Barakat-hu

What next. Are we gonna recite Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajioon when this thread dies :p