Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Anyone who takes religion that seriously, making death threats against others, is being a hypocrite and going against their religion (Where in Islam does it say to kill others for their beliefs?)

I personally hate religion because of this, I understand not everyone is a fanatic but all it ever does it divide people.

I think this protest is good, these extremists need to realise its merely a petty religion and to relax and live a little.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
All I know is if these radical Muslims keep on this aggressive path, one day they are really going to piss the wrong people off and the backlash could be cataclasmic.

I was thinking the same thing. If religion is used too much to justify murder, then, eventually, the steadily atheistic/agnostic growing world, will eventually be the majority in all of the most powerful nations. Religions will then be banned or destroyed to be or limited to small or harmless religions (for instance, certain forms of buddhism and shintoism.)

Gee golly a day devoted to offending people has offended some people.

I am so part of this movement.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Gee golly a day devoted to offending people has offended some people.

I was going to say: how surprising it is that Muslim nations have banned things they feel are against their beliefs!!!

Go West! Stick that finger in the eye of the Muslim youth, who have no concept of the struggle for freedom of speech, and are just going to interpret it as a pseduo-Colonial mockery, further cementing the idea in the Muslim world that the rest of the planet is out to get them. Thats what is going to de-radicalize the religion.

We all know Serrano's "Piss Christ" was the moment the Christian church decided to get out of politics and become moderate... or wait....

I have no problem with offending those who I feel hold offensive or violent beliefs. Not simply for the sake of offending them, but in order to bring about some positive change.

However, kinda what inamilist was saying, I remain dubious that such outbursts are a constructive way of doing that.

should name it terrorist day

Originally posted by Digi
I have no problem with offending those who I feel hold offensive or violent beliefs. Not simply for the sake of offending them, but in order to bring about some positive change.

what positive change do you think this could possibly bring?

people who have extremely generalized views of the Muslim faith are going to continue to have extremely generalized views of the Muslim faith, and Muslims who are offended by this are going to be offended and think the West as a whole (because they generalize as well as we do) is out to mock their religion.

god, its the stupid ****ing myth of activism. here, you want freedom of speech in the Islamic world? Tell western governments to stop supporting autocratic rulers in oil producing nations. Many of these governments would have long since fell were it not for Western support, and our support for them has our values labeled as corrupt. To them, the freedom to blaspheme is corrupt.

Originally posted by Digi
However, kinda what inamilist was saying, I remain dubious that such outbursts are a constructive way of doing that.

such outbursts are little better than the protests that we saw in the Muslim world in response to the cartoons

Originally posted by Liberator
(Where in Islam does it say to kill others for their beliefs?)

Let there be no compulsion is religion.
-The Koran 2:256

Tell the Unbelievers: "You go and have your religion and I shall have mine." They will not believe as you do, and you will not believe as they do, so part ways with a calm tongue.
-The Koran 109:6


So I think these nuts are just looking to cause some havoc.

actually, those are all earlier prophecies from before Mohammed was a military leader in... **** i get these confused, either Mecca or Medina.

As he gained political power, his statements became much more like "kill the infidel", and to people who are violent muslims today, there is more emphasis placed on the later suras than the earlier ones (earlier in terms of when they were said, not where they occur in the Quran)

It's just upsetting a majority who have nothing to do with the extremists. Pretty moronic 'protest'.

My drawing is gonna be awesome

Originally posted by MildPossession
It's just upsetting a majority who have nothing to do with the extremists. Pretty moronic 'protest'.

Well, it's about the right to offend people, really. Standing united against threats or something.

I don't know, I do find it outrageous that Comedy Central chose to censor their programming due to threat, and I suppose this shows that a lot of people stand behind the message the SP episode had, i.e. there shouldn't be any topic off limits to satire and ridicule, or more than that even neutral expression.

on a more serious note, I might just have to participate in this, I've had some pretty hilarious ideas since debating this issue

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Let there be no compulsion is religion.
-The Koran 2:256

Tell the Unbelievers: "You go and have your religion and I shall have mine." They will not believe as you do, and you will not believe as they do, so part ways with a calm tongue.
-The Koran 109:6


So I think these nuts are just looking to cause some havoc. It says some radical "kill infidels" things as well. It contradicts itself.

Politically/socially incorrect or not, and maybe a gimmick, but I whole heartily support this. The minority of Islam fanatics has al ready been far too effective installing fear in 'the free world' and we're just bowing down even further under their threats.
Anything that will resemble some unity on 'our' side and a displaying a shared notion that we will have not more of it (even by mocking, yet in a peacefull fashion) is a good start.

Originally posted by inimalist
on a more serious note, I might just have to participate in this, I've had some pretty hilarious ideas since debating this issue

I've seen a few good ones. Like Mohammad and Batman just standing next to each other waving at the viewer.

I think one of him just shrugging would be pretty good

lol, but I was thinking more along the lines of huge elton john star sunglasses and a stars and stripes themed robe... add a level of surrealism to it.

LOL, or Mohammed as George Clinton!

any non-white person with a beard actually....

There people won't be happy, just saying.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/muslim220806_600x400.jpg

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/angry_muslims.jpg

I don't see why they get so worked-up over someone drawing or even making fun of a pedophile. It's not like a drawing is going to affect their own personal beliefs.

Originally posted by Robtard
There people won't be happy, just saying.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/muslim220806_600x400.jpg

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/angry_muslims.jpg

I don't see why they get so worked-up over someone drawing or even making fun of a pedophile. It's not like a drawing is going to affect their own personal beliefs.

It was nice knowing you.

Originally posted by Robtard
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/muslim220806_600x400.jpg

"The Fantastic Four are on their way"?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"The Fantastic Four are on their way"?

That one is confusing, not sure if it's a language gap and something was lost in translation, or if that guy is simply crazier than the others around him.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was nice knowing you.



"Eight year olds, Dude."

(okay, she was nine)

those guys freak me out. have no respect for anyone that takes the religion that serious. all started because of a south park episdoe ? come on now. says on there due to its language and immaturity it should not be viewed by anyone. if you dont like the show and feel offended dont watch. im hispanic and there has been some mexican jokes and stuff on there and i still watch it. i know to let things go.

they show jesus's face on there and theres been some episodes where they make him look bad you dont see christians making any threats to trey paker and stone for showing that. if someone feels offended in any way of whats on they should be smart enough not to watch it.

Originally posted by Robtard
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/muslim220806_600x400.jpg

oooooh, terrifying

I bet they got a permit for that protest too

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"The Fantastic Four are on their way"?

I assume he means the 4 horsemen

Originally posted by chomperx9
those guys freak me out. have no respect for anyone that takes the religion that serious. all started because of a south park episdoe ?

No it started with a cartoon depicting Mohammad as a man with a bomb in his turban, which is undeniably offensive.

Originally posted by Robtard
There people won't be happy, just saying.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/muslim220806_600x400.jpg

ISLAM CAN BURN IN HELL.

Originally posted by chomperx9
those guys freak me out.

ha

those guys have nothing on the black bloc, and they generally strike me as ego-centric tools

you can see the cop in the background of the picture. They organized this rally with the police, they aren't dangerous.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No it started with a cartoon depicting Mohammad as a man with a bomb in his turban, which is undeniably offensive. there was a south park episdode where kyle or stan says jesus F ing christ dude in front of jesus. im sure some people got offended by that but you dont see any christians making any threats over that. sure there can be many disturbing things on that show for different races and religions. buf like i said above if you dont like it and feel offended by something on tv then dont watch it. if you dont like someone walk away. if you dont like whats on tv change the channel.

Originally posted by One Free Man
It says some radical "kill infidels" things as well. It contradicts itself.

Then name some verses; don't just say that.

And any verses that promote killing are preceeded by words such as "in the event of...". In other words, when killing is endorsed in the Koran its only for in the event of warfare or special circumstances (aka- rules of engagement). In the US killing people is illegal, except when its a state administered execution of a convict, self defense or other special circumstances. Same thing in the Koran; it doesn't allow mass slaughter on a person's whim.

Originally posted by chomperx9
there was a south park episdode where kyle or stan says jesus F ing christ dude in front of jesus. im sure some people got offended by that but you dont see any christians making any threats over that. sure there can be many disturbing things on that show for different races and religions. buf like i said above if you dont like it and feel offended by something on tv then dont watch it. if you dont like someone walk away. if you dont like whats on tv change the channel.

actually, in the 80s, Andres Serrano created a work of art called Piss Christ, which was a photo of astature of the crucifix in a bottle of his own urine.

He was awarded money from a national arts grant, and this event can be seen as one in the pivitol culture war of the 80s that saw the religification of the Republican party.

Christian groups pretty much make it impossible for any gallery to host the work of Mapplethorpe (exceptions do exist) because they find it distasteful. Tactics include calling the home of the gallery owner and threatening his children.

Christians are constantly implicated in threats of violence over the content of media, we just don't make a huge deal about it because we know they are crazy idiots, but when they are muslims, we make a big deal about it because it will sell.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, in the 80s, Andres Serrano created a work of art called Piss Christ, which was a photo of astature of the crucifix in a bottle of his own urine.

He was awarded money from a national arts grant, and this event can be seen as one in the pivitol culture war of the 80s that saw the religification of the Republican party.

Christian groups pretty much make it impossible for any gallery to host the work of Mapplethorpe (exceptions do exist) because they find it distasteful. Tactics include calling the home of the gallery owner and threatening his children.

Christians are constantly implicated in threats of violence over the content of media, we just don't make a huge deal about it because we know they are crazy idiots, but when they are muslims, we make a big deal about it because it will sell. yeah in the 80s. you make any kind of threat today on the internet or on your cell phone the FBI is on your ass in a sec. sure there might be afew christians who say id kick that guys ass ass or id like to kill him for making some christian joke . but it doesnt get out of hand like these muslims let it get.

Originally posted by inimalist

I assume he means the 4 horsemen

Lol, that's great.

Originally posted by chomperx9
yeah in the 80s. you make any kind of threat today on the internet or on your cell phone the FBI is on your ass in a sec. sure there might be afew christians who say id kick that guys ass ass or id like to kill him for making some christian joke . but it doesnt get out of hand like these muslims let it get.

/facepalm

the future is bright

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lol, that's great.

i know...

don't the muslims think they are talking over the west?

or are they starting the armegeddon in Isreal?

????

Religions get mocked all the time. Christianity is mocked regularly on this board and no one really cares, and rightfully so - there are a lot of stupid things in the Christian belief structure.

Islam is no different, they also believe in some stupid shit. Why is it so horrible to draw Muhammad? Because some old book says so. Woopty do. They're just drawings, get over it.

What i wanna know is why people are stirring shit. Leave the muslims alone.

Originally posted by BackFire
Religions get mocked all the time. Christianity is mocked regularly on this board and no one really cares, and rightfully so - there are a lot of stupid things in the Christian belief structure.

Islam is no different, they also believe in some stupid shit. Why is it so horrible to draw Muhammad? Because some old book says so. Woopty do. They're just drawings, get over it.

More to the point they're part of a wide spread hatred of Islam that is totally acceptable in the west. Muslims have every right to stand up and say that this sort of thing is not okay.

Originally posted by One Free Man
What i wanna know is why people are stirring shit. Leave the muslims alone.
I agree... I mean, are we supposed to be thinking Muslims were stupid for getting offended by something specifically crafted to offend them? It's like the guy who made the urine-dipped cross artwork acting shocked that people got offended.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More to the point they're part of a wide spread hatred of Islam that is totally acceptable in the west. Muslims have every right to stand up and say that this sort of thing is not okay.

Of course they do. But they should change their aim to those who are truly at fault for directly encouraging such behavior - the vile psychopaths who are threatening murder in the name of Islam, thus tarring the religion from the inside.

They are attempting to bully, and when you attempt to bully, people will rebel. These bullies say 'don't draw our prophet or we'll kill you'. So the people rebel by drawing their prophet, not to upset the decent Muslims, but as a great big '**** you' to the psychopaths attempting to force their hands.

Blame the extremists, just as most people do when it comes to Christianity and other such religions, not those who are simply trying to point out the absurdity of those extremists.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More to the point they're part of a wide spread hatred of Islam that is totally acceptable in the west. Muslims have every right to stand up and say that this sort of thing is not okay.

I doubt anyone objects to Muslims showing disapproval of Muhammad pictures; it's the groups that state "we're going to kill" that I imagine this drawing-day is aimed at.

Edit: Or what BF said.

Originally posted by BackFire
Of course they do. But they should change their aim to those who are truly at fault for directly encouraging such behavior - the vile psychopaths who are threatening murder in the name of Islam, thus tarring the religion from the inside.

They are attempting to bully, and when you attempt to bully, people will rebel. These bullies say 'don't draw our prophet or we'll kill you'. So the people rebel by drawing their prophet, not to upset the decent Muslims, but as a great big '**** you' to the psychopaths attempting to force their hands.

Blame the extremists, just as most people do when it comes to Christianity and other such religions, not those who are simply trying to point out the absurdity of those extremists.

It doesn't matter who the target is, though, you're catching all other Muslims who are offended by depiction of Mohammad along with absolutely all Muslims who are offended by hatred of their entire religion.

If someone wants to say Islam sucks, fine that's their right. When you can set up a whole event devoted specifically to insulting Islam then yes, you have a very serious problem on that side. Not to mention that you completely prove the point of these extremists for them:

"The west hates Islam!"
"No it doesn't!"
"Then why do you have a day that does nothing but insult us?"
"Uh..."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

"The west hates Islam!"
"No it doesn't!"
"Then why do you have a day that does nothing but insult us?"
"Well the reasons of behind the effort are quite clear, are they not, we use our numbers to set a sign against radical islamists threatening our freedoms. Not that it is an official day anyways, there's just certain people who want to express their outrage in this way, which in our culture is fine, additionally that should show you that it is not just about insulting "you", although if I have to lecture you on western beliefs and the difference between "some people living in the west" and "the west", perhaps it's not quite possible for us to have an intellectual conversation on that matter "
"Uh"

Of course it matters who the target is. Intent always matters. Sure it's offending all Muslims, but the intent isn't to offend all Muslims, it's to piss off the evil extremists. The fact that it's a large scale online movement really doesn't make it any different than someone simply mocking Islam, it's just a lot of people doing it, and the reason they're doing it is because of the extremists.

That last part is just circular reasoning. The actual answer to that question isn't "Uh...", but that they have a day to insult Islam because they don't like having their life threatened, and they're rebelling the only way they really can. None of this would be happening if the extremists weren't threatening people's lives. And the Muslims that are going to side with extremists who want to kill people over some drawings deserve to be mocked. Those people's feelings should not be taken into account, as their mental capacity is so far gone that their opinion matters not.

Originally posted by BackFire
Of course it matters who the target is. Intent always matters. Sure it's offending all Muslims, but the intent isn't to offend all Muslims, it's to piss off the evil extremists.

Do you really think this won't piss of Muslims in general?

Originally posted by BackFire
The fact that it's a large scale online movement really doesn't make it any different than someone simply mocking Islam, it's just a lot of people doing it, and the reason they're doing it is because of the extremists.

Of course it matters that a large scale movement is doing this rather than one person. It's the same difference as a long nutjob and a war.

Originally posted by BackFire
That last part is just circular reasoning. The actual answer to that question isn't "Uh...", but that they have to day to insult Islam because they don't like having their life threatened, and they're rebelling the only way they really can. None of this would be happening if the extremists weren't threatening people's lives.

No, none of this would be happening if people were mature enough to not feel some special need to insult people and paint their perceived enemies with a broad brush.

But I guess if people really want to live by the law of the playground they can.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you really think this won't piss of Muslims in general?



Of course it matters that a large scale movement is doing this rather than one person. It's the same difference as a long nutjob and a war.



No, none of this would be happening if people were mature enough to not feel some special need to insult people and paint their perceived enemies with a broad brush.

But I guess if people really want to live by the law of the playground they can.

It will piss off Muslims. But that doesn't matter. Offending people is not a big deal. Happens on this board all the time.

And no, a war is something started by the government, this is not an official day endorsed by any government. Exceedingly poor analogy there. It's just a lot of people who don't appreciate having their lives threatened and they're just rebelling. It will stop when threats against the lives of those who draw silly little pictures stop.

What should they do? Just appease the bullies? If you threaten people's lives, there will be backlash. This is simply that backlash, and it's not even that bad. If you threaten someone's life, and all the people do is draw pictures in response - not so bad.

It is extremely telling and pathetic that you're placing the blame on those exercising their rights to simply draw a picture in protest of those who are attempting to snuff that right, rather than those who are condoning murder and torture over said picture. Not sure what broad brush you're talking about. No one is saying all Muslims are bad or evil, just those that are deserve to have their beliefs shit on. And this IS a response to extremists, if the extremists weren't threatening people, it would not be having. This is factual.

Originally posted by inimalist
what positive change do you think this could possibly bring?

I don't. I'm opposed to it. I'm not opposed to offending others simply on principle, but I am in this case because I see no possible benefit.

Originally posted by inimalist
people who have extremely generalized views of the Muslim faith are going to continue to have extremely generalized views of the Muslim faith, and Muslims who are offended by this are going to be offended and think the West as a whole (because they generalize as well as we do) is out to mock their religion.

god, its the stupid ****ing myth of activism. here, you want freedom of speech in the Islamic world? Tell western governments to stop supporting autocratic rulers in oil producing nations. Many of these governments would have long since fell were it not for Western support, and our support for them has our values labeled as corrupt. To them, the freedom to blaspheme is corrupt.

such outbursts are little better than the protests that we saw in the Muslim world in response to the cartoons

Agreed in full. I think you misread my last post.

Originally posted by Digi
I don't. I'm opposed to it. I'm not opposed to offending others simply on principle, but I am in this case because I see no possible benefit.

ok, but even in general. I'm as much a fan as transgressive art as the next guy (I have a Mapplethorpe print in my room!), but its actual value in society can be really limited, especially as a force for activism.

Even when trasngressive art is good, it is making us feel uncomforable with ourselves, or showing us the skeletons we all have in our closets, the desires that unite all humans but that the social contract sort of obliges us to forget. That doesn't seem to be the way that people should want to engage with eachother in dialogue.

I'm not making this personally at you, but like, I really just don't get this whole thing. I'm totally with Sym, it really just shows that Muslims, the generalized group, are still a valid target or vitriol. Else, and I'm totally serious here, why don't we have a Lou day?

Lou was a picture by mapplethorpe of a man inserting his finger into his penis. We should all do that to stand up against the Christians who petition, protest, and threaten to prevent his work to be shown!

Who is with me! all you free speech advocates! all you super libertarian freedom fighters! Support freedom of speech everywhere, give yourself a Lou.

/rant.... ya, my appologies digi, none of that actually meant for you....

Originally posted by Digi
Agreed in full. I think you misread my last post.

probably, my bad. I was more reacting against the thread in a reply to you, much like above... exploitative?

Ok thanks, not directly at me but to the thread in general.

Tbh, I'd be hard pressed to name a situation in which offending a group on a societal level is potentially more good than harm. I could name such situations on a more personal level, but that's another matter entirely. I just didn't want my objection to this particular tactic to come across as "we shouldn't offend anyone" because, well, that's more than a bit naive imo.

Originally posted by One Free Man
What i wanna know is why people are stirring shit. Leave the muslims alone. if there were no threats towards us they would be left alone

if you dont like whats on the net then close the page.
if you dont like whats on tv change the channel.
no one is forcing anyone to watch or hear anything.

move on with your life and let it go if something in the media offends you. there will always be some kinda offensive humor towards every race and religion. just dont get into it if you feel offended by it. like i said above no one is being forced to watch anything. its your choice no one elses.

and threatning another human life is not the answer just makes your kind look worse and worse every day.

Originally posted by chomperx9
if there were no threats towards us they would be left alone

And they'll stop making threats when they're left alone.

Darn, I see a problem here. If only we didn't live by the law of the playground.

The fact that they're making threats only validates the mockery. And besides, the extremists will make threats regardless simply because to them all one must do in order to be justifiably killed is not believe in what they believe in.

Why should Muslims be off limits of mockery or parody when all other religions are considered fair game? Either all religion can be made fun of or none of it can be. I prefer the former.

Originally posted by BackFire
The fact that they're making threats only validates the mockery. And besides, the extremists will make threats regardless simply because to them all one must do in order to be justifiably killed is not believe in what they believe in.

Why should Muslims be off limits of mockery or parody when all other religions are considered fair game? Either all religion can be made fun of or none of it can be. I prefer the former.

There's a noticeable difference between making fun of a religion and organizing a day for that purpose.

I'm all for South Park using Mohammad in a cartoon by the way or even a cartoonist doing the bomb turban thing. But this sort of organized hatred never goes anywhere good.

I don't think there is. Both involve mockery. It's just the scale of it that changes.

Originally posted by BackFire
I don't think there is. Both involve mockery. It's just the scale of it that changes.

Scale changes a lot.

In Germany people hated Jews and sometimes killed them just for being Jewish. You can't tell me that the Holocaust was just the same thing on a larger scale. That was making a group devoted to that hatred and turning it into a self reinforcing aspect of the culture.

Or if you don't like Godwin look at the different between a mugger and a gang or other organized crime. Yeah, they both attack people but there's more difference there than just scale.

Self righteous groupthink is just as dangerous as any other kind and it only ever gets deeper, more extreme and harder to root out as time goes on.

Scale can change a lot, it doesn't inherently. It doesn't here. One individual drawing Muhammad to make a point is no different than many individuals doing it to make the same point.

You paint it as a dangerous movement, when in reality, it's just drawings. I've seen some, most are just silly little drawings, most in good humor. They aren't hurting anyone, they're celebrating the freedom to draw what they wish. It's simply a protest. Nothing more, nothing less.

And you say it's organized hatred. An irrelevent statement. The only hatred is against those threatening murder and violence. The worst you can say about them is that they don't care if they offend muslims. That's not hatred, that's indifference.

Meanwhile, it seems Facebook has deleted the Everyone Draw Muhammad Day group from their site.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I agree... I mean, are we supposed to be thinking Muslims were stupid for getting offended by something specifically crafted to offend them? It's like the guy who made the urine-dipped cross artwork acting shocked that people got offended. Well, obviously they're stupid for being offended. Logic dictates that:

1. Death threats are a sin for muslims, and:
2. Muhammad was just a man, nothing more nothing less, I mean, Jesus was god on earth and we draw him all the time. Retarded depictions of a surfer boy in a robe, really. Making us Christians stupid for not being offended by this.

Logic also dictates that if we didn't do stupid shit for the sole reason of pissing off the most murderous group of religious fanatics on the planet, they would kill us a lot less. Just because we have freedom of speech doesn't mean we should taunt other people in order to prove it. This makes the whole day stupid.

So really its just a whole load of stupid. Stupid stupid.

Originally posted by BackFire
You paint it as a dangerous movement, when in reality, it's just drawings.

That's a gross over simplification in deliberate ignorance of context.

Originally posted by BackFire
I've seen some, most are just silly little drawings, most in good humor. They aren't hurting anyone, they're celebrating the freedom to draw what they wish. It's simply a protest. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's a protest that is specifically giving a big "**** you" to an entire religion.

Originally posted by BackFire
And you say it's organized hatred. An irrelevent statement. The only hatred is against those threatening murder and violence.

Originally posted by chomperx9
ISLAM CAN BURN IN HELL.

Yep, clearly people can differentiate between nutjobs and Islam in general. In fact the internet is well known for fostering intelligent debate.

Originally posted by BackFire
The worst you can say about them is that they don't care if they offend muslims. That's not hatred, that's indifference.

That's an incredibly fine line to be treading when you consider the history between Islam and the West.

Originally posted by BackFire
Meanwhile, it seems Facebook has deleted the Everyone Draw Muhammad Day group from their site.

That would be Facebook exercising it's rights.

Originally posted by One Free Man
2. Muhammad was just a man, nothing more nothing less, I mean, Jesus was god on earth and we draw him all the time. Retarded depictions of a surfer boy in a robe, really. Making us Christians stupid for not being offended by this.

Does Christianity in general consider depiction of Jesus to be blasphemous?

Nope. perfectly fine with it, although it always comes out cheesy whenever it happens.

It's like if a 7 year old drew a picture of me. I wouldn't care, but it'd be pretty crappy, and give other 7 year olds a cheesy perception of me.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Nope. perfectly fine with it, although it always comes out cheesy whenever it happens.

It's like if a 7 year old drew a picture of me. I wouldn't care, but it'd be pretty crappy, and give other 7 year olds a cheesy perception of me.

No, no, my point is that Islam actually has it as a commandment of some sort that you're not supposed to depict Mohammad. You can't really draw a parallel to Christianity since no such rule exists within the religion about Jesus.

I believe you, but i'd like to have a look at that verse, or is it the one right between "blow yourself up for 72 virgins," and "Women must wear masks over their faces." and "We must wear turbans even though that's hindii."

and other popular misconceptions about the qur'an. I mean, I'm no muslim but it's obvious these guys pull alot of their theology from something other than the qur'an.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, no, my point is that Islam actually has it as a commandment of some sort that you're not supposed to depict Mohammad. You can't really draw a parallel to Christianity since no such rule exists within the religion about Jesus.
It's in the bloody ten commandments... "make no graven images".

bull.. that only applies to God not anything else.,.. otherwise god be punishing ppl left and right..

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
bull.. that only applies to God not anything else.,.. otherwise god be punishing ppl left and right..
But Jesus is god.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a gross over simplification in deliberate ignorance of context.


It's not though. They are drawings. They are drawings that will offend some people, but they are drawings none the less. Drawings done for the sake of protesting violent threats. This is the context - fact.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's a protest that is specifically giving a big "**** you" to an entire religion.

Not really. It's intended as a big **** you to violent extremists. To the rest of the religion, it's a big 'we don't really care about your religion'. And why should they?

Shitting on Christianity is okay. Shitting on Scientology is okay. Shitting on Judaism is okay. Shitting on Islam is okay.





Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yep, clearly people can differentiate between nutjobs and Islam in general. In fact the internet is well known for fostering intelligent debate.

Yes, people can. Just because one person (who as far as I know didn't even draw a picture) didn't doesn't mean all those drawing pictures are doing the same. And even if they did, so what? People shit on religion all the time. Some people think religion is stupid, Islam is just as stupid as any other religion. If it's okay to say "**** Christianity", then it's okay to say "**** Islam" or something of the like.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's an incredibly fine line to be treading when you consider the history between Islam and the West.

History doesn't placate assumptions of hatred. You seem to think someone drawing a picture of Muhammad during this protest = they must hate Islam.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That would be Facebook exercising it's rights.

Yes, I was just reporting it because it was relevant to the thread and interesting.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But Jesus is god.

jesus isnt god any more then we are...

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
jesus isnt god any more then we are...
I agree. But i'm not the one with the "no graven images" rule.

making an image of jesus is not making a graven image of god, though

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
jesus isnt god any more then we are... according to christianity, yes he is. And graven images refers to creating idols to worship.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
making an image of jesus is not making a graven image of god, though
Jesus is god.

Originally posted by One Free Man
according to christianity, yes he is. And graven images refers to creating idols to worship.

there is an entire christian sect that shares the belief that jesus is not god but just an angel. so "Christianity" is a little too broad.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Jesus is god. not to me.. and if he is he is as much god as i am and thats b/c we are one in the same an aspect of the whole.

i just drew a picture of jesus holding muhammad upside down by his legs. so what big deal. if you dont like the picture dont have to see it.

why is any of this even being targeted at Islam?

If people are worried about losing freedom of speech in the West because of Muslims , wouldn't it be better to protest Comedy Central or the other organizations that are willing to censor such images?

Muslims have the right to protest and request media not be shown, in the same way everyone has the right to draw cartoons in protest.

All this could possibly do is make moderate Muslims even further sensitive to what they would see as deliberate offense toward their religion, and make broadcasters much more likely to placate to them in the future.

Ultimatly this issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech. There is no risk at all that you would lose your right to draw mohammed, and for a list of things you could do, because god damn it, it is your right as a free American, why not start with shitting your pants on the bus. C'mon guys, this is free speach, lets get creative!

or wait, its not free speach, its mockery dressed in its finest "conflict of civilizations" attire, and put to whatever narrative is attracting viewers to the 24 hour "news" networks.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
not to me.. and if he is he is as much god as i am and thats b/c we are one in the same an aspect of the whole.
If that's what you believe than IDK why you were ever trying to argue the graven images thing... obviously I was talking about christianity...

why do you guys say "Christianity" as if it is a universally held belief in Christianity that jesus is god?

Originally posted by King Kandy
If that's what you believe than IDK why you were ever trying to argue the graven images thing... obviously I was talking about christianity... b/c ur not suppose to idolize anyone but god.. and i was joking which is why i posted bull at the beginning of my post for laughs seeing as god open a can of righteous judgment on moses ppl..

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
why do you guys say "Christianity" as if it is a universally held belief in Christianity that jesus is god?
I would say its at least 80%. And regardless, if you want you can mentally change what i'm saying to "sects that believe in trinity concepts".

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
why do you guys say "Christianity" as if it is a universally held belief in Christianity that jesus is god? i usually say judeo based then the religion in question example: judeo/christian... if you want i can say Zoroastrianism root based religions of the modern world. the core religion that birthed Judaism and its various variations..

Originally posted by King Kandy
I would say its at least 80% And regardless, if you want you can mentally change what i'm saying to "sects that believe in trinity concepts". so whats the relevance of that? are you making an appeal to majority?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
so whats the relevance of that? are you making an appeal to majority?
I'd call it more like "i'd rather discuss things relevant to many than things relevant to a few". Potato Potahto I guess.

I think in both the cases of Mohammed and Christ, the rules regulating their depiction are more something that has evolved over time, rather than having specific scriptural reference.

I've heard that some older Catholics are against taking photos of the Pope or such things, but there is probably little (graven images?) scripturally to reference that.

Depicting Mohammed goes back to the time of Mohammed. iirc, there are images of him during his life, and especially in Turkey, there has always been a tradition of drawing him in certain ways (admittedly, many times his face is either veiled or clouded, which is an important cultural consideration when talking about veiling in Islam).

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'd call it more like "i'd rather discuss things relevant to many than things relevant to a few". Potato Potahto I guess.

well as long as you preface your posts with that specification i guess its all good. its silly to make sweeping statements like "Christianity believes", though, considering there are many Christians, millions in fact, with different ideologies.

idealogy isnt the word im going for. "core beliefs? meh you know what i mean

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, no, my point is that Islam actually has it as a commandment of some sort that you're not supposed to depict Mohammad. You can't really draw a parallel to Christianity since no such rule exists within the religion about Jesus.

It doesn't. Not depicting Mohammed is just a choice artists have made throughout the centuries so people don't worship him instead of God. Some Muslim art freely depicts him.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg
http://arefe.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/tekeste-2.jpg
http://facesofmohammed.an3.es/muhammad/american-painting.jpg


Originally posted by One Free Man
I believe you, but i'd like to have a look at that verse, or is it the one right between "blow yourself up for 72 virgins," and "Women must wear masks over their faces." and "We must wear turbans even though that's hindii."

Exactly, none of those verses exist. And the turban is actually Sikh.

More Muslims want to kill people? No way! Look at my big surprised face.

Blood religions should hurry up and die, for the good of mankind. The world doesn't need them any more. And i can say that with all due respect, because no respect is actually due.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
there is an entire christian sect that shares the belief that jesus is not god but just an angel. so "Christianity" is a little too broad. christianity as pertaining to fundamentalism and the consensus is that Jesus is god. some weird other thing isn't exactly the consensus. Also, according to the bible, he is the inherent son of god. Claims it himself. why would he claim that when he's an angel?

Originally posted by One Free Man
I believe you, but i'd like to have a look at that verse, or is it the one right between "blow yourself up for 72 virgins," and "Women must wear masks over their faces." and "We must wear turbans even though that's hindii."

FYI - "Hindi - is a language.

And as Quiero Mota already corrected, the turban is part of the Sikh religion.

stfu I meant hindu big dumbass party is dumbass.

Yeah, I'm sure you did.
So why are you getting so defensive?

BECAUSE IM A WOUNDED PERSon. My soul is scarred by people like you who go on the internet and try and be smart.

I WAS ONCE ACCUSED OF TROLLING 4CHAN BY SUCH A PERSON

D:

Instead of hi-jacking this thread and turning it to spam, I've sent to you a lovely PM. If there's anything else you wish to say, please don't do so.

Didn't read your PM, probably won't, if I do, i'll make it public depending on how fun it will be to rip apart with my massive intellect.

Someone had already stated that the turban thing was sikh, although turban wearing IS IN FACT common in Hindus as well, although not required by their religion. This makes you a piggyback know-it-all. Also redundant.

Someone else was smart, and you pointed it out. See how clever you look? If I could just get credit (while adding to my post count) as a genius on this forum while effectively wasting ten of your earth minutes in as eruditely of a fashion as you have.

I know, What I will do is make a 500 word post on how stupid you look when you just copy/paste someone elses post! this will effectively piggyback off of your supreme idiotic douche-baggery, giving me ultimate power and diverting attention from the fact that I made a slight mistake in cultural awareness!

Oh wait, I sort of just did that! So here's what I'm going to have to do, give you some much needed guidance and supply you with this instructional link: http://www.cracked.com/funny-2724-trolls/ Alright? now recognize yourself as the "Professor" on that chart. I mean, and that's a compliment, you didn't even use the net! you just used someone else's post. So now, just accept that you are a troll sock, and move on.

Also, if you want to qualify this topic as "Off-topic," mr. Admin, as I'm SURE Your going to pass by when this nubfail runs out of options and reports me, I will provide PLENTY of on-topic content:

http://www.mmsinternational.org/India_picture_039.jpg
this is a hindu man.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1083/526365580_7acdab164b.jpg?v=0
another hindu man.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42405000/jpg/_42405079_mela8_ap.jpg
another hindu man.

They're all wearing turbans. Sure, they aren't required, but they are worn ALOT by hindu people as well.

EDIT (noobfag's angry strong worded pm, i'm just going to edit out the bullshit and leave the good parts):




Hey, thanks for rude. This post is sarcasm as you would know if you knew what 4chan was. You're uneducated about the internet too, now? wow.
Yep, telling someone who is pointing out a minute, minor error unnecessarily after it has been pointed out to stfu certainly is uncalled for.
I mispell "hindi," mistakingly using hindi as the adjective form of "hindu" and in one of his amaizingly instructional spelling lectures INCLUDES A MISSPELLING of the words "childishness," "wasting," "apology," and "ment."

also, he's not wasting his time asking for an apology, but rather spending it sending me a long-worded misspelled lecture, expecting no results. Hmmm. I wonder what that's about.

will do

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, those are all earlier prophecies from before Mohammed was a military leader in... **** i get these confused, either Mecca or Medina.

As he gained political power, his statements became much more like "kill the infidel", and to people who are violent muslims today, there is more emphasis placed on the later suras than the earlier ones (earlier in terms of when they were said, not where they occur in the Quran)

Beat me to it.

Originally posted by inimalist

Lou was a picture by mapplethorpe of a man inserting his finger into his penis. We should all do that to stand up against the Christians who petition, protest, and threaten to prevent his work to be shown!

Who is with me! all you free speech advocates! all you super libertarian freedom fighters! Support freedom of speech everywhere, give yourself a Lou.


Cause that would hurt. I am in favour of proliferating his art though in protest. You should start the movement. So, did that happen a week ago? Were there death threats?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's a noticeable difference between making fun of a religion and organizing a day for that purpose.

I'm all for South Park using Mohammad in a cartoon by the way or even a cartoonist doing the bomb turban thing. But this sort of organized hatred never goes anywhere good.

That's exactly the point though. One person doing it can be easily targeted and threatened or scared. So a group response does make sense.

Originally posted by inimalist
Muslims have the right to protest and request media not be shown, in the same way everyone has the right to draw cartoons in protest.


No one (reasonable, of course there are ignorant idiots and I'm with you on that) is denying that. It's when death threats and actual violent actions come into play that people get annoyed.


Like in this case for example.




Though really what is most important to keep in mind here is the scope. It is drawings vs. death threats. DRAWINGS!

When you say, you think that this movement is wrong and offensive you might want to keep in mind that it is drawings, simple doodles, protesting death threats (or more than that actual murders).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it's about the right to offend people, really. Standing united against threats or something.



I don't think so. I really think its because a ceratin group of people think they deserve special treatment and it the same time are generally intolerant thats why they're not picking on Buddhists.

You shouldn't get attacked for offending somebody but at the same time you shouldn't go out of your way to offend people without a good reason.

Originally posted by Skittle
Nice job, yes boy, I'm actually giving you credt for managing to do some research and pulling of a decent amising yet mediokrely intelectual post, yet trailing along the Off Topic borders, but since it was amusing to read, you do deserve a medal. Unfortunately, I'm fresh out, but when I bake some cookies, I'll send you some. How's that sound, friend? *jumping joy*
DO you mean "credit," "amusing," and god what is that word? Mediokrely? is that like krill mixed with media? is that a language? oh, yes, and. "Intellectual?"
not illegal, but redundant, pointless, retarded. Someone already said it, why say it again? And then why draw additional attention to yourself by going all SRS BZNS about obvious sarcasm?
Don't give a shit, that is the look that most dumb-ass associate with Muslims. It was a minor point on things that aren't in the Qur'an.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It doesn't. Not depicting Mohammed is just a choice artists have made throughout the centuries so people don't worship him instead of God. Some Muslim art freely depicts him.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg
http://arefe.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/tekeste-2.jpg
http://facesofmohammed.an3.es/muhammad/american-painting.jpg


Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!

Honesty, how do we know those are supposed to be the main man himself? Without a "Hey, I'm Muhammad the one prophet" caption, it's just a Arabic looking fellow.

Originally posted by Robtard
Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!

Honesty, how do we know those are supposed to be the main man himself? Without a "Hey, I'm Muhammad the one prophet" caption, it's just a Arabic looking fellow.

Indeed. Similar "period pieces" of Jesus at least give us a hint with a halo...n'stuff.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. Similar "period pieces" of Jesus at least give us a hint with a halo...n'stuff.

pictures where his face is clearly shown:

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

pictures where his face is obscured by cloud or veil

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_face_hidden/

images from europe (medieval/rennissance)

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/euro_medi_ren/

in Muslim works, his head is often surrounded in a halo or is on fire

So in the end, there is nothing in scripture stating that depicting Mohammad is wrong and/or punishable by death?

Granted, I'm not talking about drawing/painting portraits of Mohammad having a three-way with a lumberjack and a lion, which is obviously offensive to some.

Originally posted by One Free Man
christianity as pertaining to fundamentalism and the consensus is that Jesus is god. some weird other thing isn't exactly the consensus. Also, according to the bible, he is the inherent son of god. Claims it himself. why would he claim that when he's an angel?

how does him being an angel contradict him being the son of god?

who cares what the consensus is? maybe the consensus is absolutely wrong, maybe not.

EDIT- i dont know exactly how their beliefs work but heres a little summary thingy i found

"While Jesus is a mighty god, he is not the almighty God."

That's a lol, oh all these silly different sects of Christianity, can even decide what's what.

yeah its ridiculous lol

I wonder if any poster here would be willing to change their name to Mohammed, and make their avatar and sig into pictures of Mohammed?

I know I would not, but maybe stake knife would.

Originally posted by Robtard
Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!

Honesty, how do we know those are supposed to be the main man himself? Without a "Hey, I'm Muhammad the one prophet" caption, it's just a Arabic looking fellow.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg


How is there any doubt? That's Mohammed cradling the Black Rock, which is on the corner of the kaaba in Mecca. C'mon; anyone who knows their religous art can spot a painting of Mohammed just as easily as they could one of Jesus or Buddha.

Looks like a guy about to make sweet-love to a large lump of coal.

I was under the impression the black stone was much more massive? But that one is more telling than the others.

Originally posted by Robtard
Looks like a guy about to make sweet-love to a large lump of coal.

I was under the impression the black stone was much more massive? But that one is more telling than the others.

You're probably thinking about the giant black cube; that's the kaaba. But the black rock is about that size.

I over-looked this post, which should answer your question:

Originally posted by inimalist
pictures where his face is clearly shown:

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

i wish i could see how this type of belief structure plays out a thousand yrs from now when the find superman spiderman comics..

you must not say their true names b/c its a secret.. must never draw spiderman without his mask or we will kill you...

the act so far has been a disaster on freedom of speech.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
how does him being an angel contradict him being the son of god?

who cares what the consensus is? maybe the consensus is absolutely wrong, maybe not.

EDIT- i dont know exactly how their beliefs work but heres a little summary thingy i found Jehova's witness, really? that's not even close to fundamentalists, in fact most dumbass fundamentalists consider that a cult.

... what do fundamentalists have to do with my post? o.o

i never said JW's were fundy's. JW's are Christians, though. Christians who dont believe that jesus actually is god.

Obviously, I thought we were laughing at fundamentalists, as usual. SO i guess it depends on who's version of Jesus H. Christ we are comparing with Muhammad.

Originally posted by Robtard
So in the end, there is nothing in scripture stating that depicting Mohammad is wrong and/or punishable by death?

its probably some lines about blasphemy, graven images, not worshiping man made objects in the place of the prophet, and other about the consequences of insulting Islam, but no, afaik, there are no direct passages that specifically deal with making depictions of the prophet.

Though, this is true of most things in most religions. The theological justification for the veil comes from verses where mohammed makes people speak to Aiesha from behind a curtain.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Obviously, I thought we were laughing at fundamentalists, as usual. SO i guess it depends on who's version of Jesus H. Christ we are comparing with Muhammad.

mmm

okay we can laugh

This is dumb.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Cause that would hurt. I am in favour of proliferating his art though in protest. You should start the movement. So, did that happen a week ago? Were there death threats?

it wasn't a week ago, but there were death threats, much clearer than the veiled ones in this case. But the point is the same. If you think promoting freedom of speech means deliberatly going out and making people feel uncomfortable because dammit, it is your right, that just seems silly.

The ADL, numerous Christian and family groups, and really any interest group at this point constantly complain and try to get media taken off the air. And yes, often death threats are used. We don't hear about it because a) the police know it is normally a cook and b) making a big fuss about it gives these people more power!

If anything, you should be protesting in a way that offends or shames comedy central and other broadcasters who gave into these threats.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No one (reasonable, of course there are ignorant idiots and I'm with you on that) is denying that. It's when death threats and actual violent actions come into play that people get annoyed.

The problem is, rules against the depiction of Mohammed are not just things believed by islamic extremeists.

You are not simply targeting the people who made the threats, unless you generalize all muslims as being violent in that way

Originally posted by Bardock42
When you say, you think that this movement is wrong and offensive you might want to keep in mind that it is drawings, simple doodles, protesting death threats (or more than that actual murders).

I didn't say wrong or offensive, I said dumb, ineffectual, counter productive, ethnic out-grouping, aimed at the wrong group and sort of ignorant of how reactive the muslim identity is to western influence. I'd add immature

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
mmm

okay we can laugh that's enough. now I want sex. AND YOU WILL RESPECT MAY ATHORITAY

you cant handle the sex!

Originally posted by inimalist


Though, this is true of most things in most religions. The theological justification for the veil comes from verses where mohammed makes people speak to Aiesha from behind a curtain.

Probably to minimize people finding out he's bedding a 9 year old, dude.

"Oh, no, Abbud, she just sounds VERY young." *nervous laugh*

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably to minimize people finding out he's bedding a 9 year old, dude.

"Oh, no, Abbud, she just sounds VERY young." *nervous laugh*

his wedding Aiesha and the theological justifications for it represent something that was common practice at the time, not something mohammed invented and justified through revelation

the fact that we see it as wrong aside, there is little doubt that he treated Aiesha very well, and there would be little reason for him to try and hide her age

I get the joke, but it is more about him valueing her (possibly overly possessive) and not wanting these other men to tarnish or desire her (in south asia, looking is similar to touching, in that it is considered a real form of contact, Hindu caste regulation is really weird about it) than trying to hide anything

Strange. I said all that in court when I boinked a 9 year old, and it didn't fly.

I was born in the wrong age.

Rofl

Originally posted by BackFire
Strange. I said all that in court when I boinked a 9 year old, and it didn't fly.

I was born in the wrong age.

indeed

many culture have practiced many things that we would deem immoral, and undoubtedly, in 100 years, people will look back at our own savagery and ignorance for their own comfort, much like we do

Don't care what age I was born in, I can't begin to imagine seeing a 9 year old child as a sexual object.

No ass, **** and the face of a little kid, just doesn't fly for me. Wait, maybe he married her for the scintillating conversation she could offer.

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed

many culture have practiced many things that we would deem immoral, and undoubtedly, in 100 years, people will look back at our own savagery and ignorance for their own comfort, much like we do

I can see it now. The inside of a Snapple:

Did 100 years ago you could actually be arrested for having sex with a child?

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't care what age I was born in, I can't begin to imagine seeing a 9 year old child as a sexual object.

No ass, **** and the face of a little kid, just doesn't fly for me. Wait, maybe he married her for the scintillating conversation she could offer.

well, yes, but its only a recent phenomenon that people get married for love, and even more recent that sexual attraction was one of the most important parts of this.

Were you born in the mid 600s in the Arabian peninsula, you would not be marrying for love, no matter how many wives you had or how old you were. The marriage to Aisha was almost certainly to cement family loyalties, and this practice was common through the middle ages in Europe, with equally young girls.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can see it now. The inside of a Snapple:

Did 100 years ago you could actually be arrested for having sex with a child?

ha, I hope it doesn't swing back that way... I sort of meant with regard to environmental policy and animal rights (not I believe these are the moral "best", just that it seems this is the way society is going)

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't care what age I was born in, I can't begin to imagine seeing a 9 year old child as a sexual object.

No ass, **** and the face of a little kid, just doesn't fly for me. Wait, maybe he married her for the scintillating conversation she could offer.

Culture is a powerful force. I can't imagine being attracted to chubby women by the Greeks were all about the blubber.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Culture is a powerful force. I can't imagine being attracted to chubby women by the Greeks were all about the blubber.

Al Jazeera did a special on women in Mauritania who are, as children, force fed so that they turn out to be extremely obese. To the point where they would be humerous spectacle in our culture.

Being fat is seen as such a sign of beauty there, they even doctors who make a living treating these women for heart problems describe how beautiful they are, despite the obvious health problems

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't care what age I was born in, I can't begin to imagine seeing a 9 year old child as a sexual object.

No ass, **** and the face of a little kid, just doesn't fly for me. Wait, maybe he married her for the scintillating conversation she could offer.

But I saw you in that video.

^
^
Na, I'm sticking with pedophilia is pedophilia, call me stubborn and ignorant if you wish.

Originally posted by BackFire
But I saw you in that video.

That was an 18 year old boy with a growth problem.

PS, he loved it, squealed like a pig.

Originally posted by Robtard
^
^
Na, I'm sticking with pedophilia is pedophilia, call me stubborn and ignorant if you wish.

you mean the psychological disorder in which one has a sexual compulsion for underaged partners?

ya, mohammed would not have qualified for that whatsoever

you can stick with whatever you want, its up to you if you want to actually understand other cultures.

Well this is just being annoying for the sake of being annoying.

I disagree with Muslims' approach to ..... all kinds of things, but this is just ridiculous.

Originally posted by inimalist
you mean the psychological disorder in which one has a sexual compulsion for underaged partners?

ya, mohammed would not have qualified for that whatsoever

you can stick with whatever you want, its up to you if you want to actually understand other cultures.

Wait so Mohamed didn't marry Aisha?


I'm confused...is it not true or something?




Originally posted by Robtard
That was an 18 year old boy with a growth problem.

PS, he loved it, squealed like a pig.

Well, here's a kicker: if you were attracted to his prepubescent looking form, then that would most likely be pedophilia, as well: using his age as a crutch doesn't change that.

Originally posted by inimalist
you mean the psychological disorder in which one has a sexual compulsion for underaged partners?

ya, mohammed would not have qualified for that whatsoever

you can stick with whatever you want, its up to you if you want to actually understand other cultures.

Guy marries a 6 year old and then beds her when she's 9. Yet somehow he isn't a pedophile? Was there something outside his power conpulsing/forcing him and he couldn't wait longer?

I understand that marrying and ****ing little children was culturally acceptable in his day and age, great. Yet I still don't agree with it and the man was a sick ****, imo. Just as I understand owning a negro as a slave-whipping-boy and doing whatever you wish with what was considered your "property" was culturally acceptable in 1820's United States, or parts there of. I still don't think it was okay though and slave owners were sick ****s too.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Well, here's a kicker: if you were attracted to his prepubescent looking form, then that would most likely be pedophilia, as well: using his age as a crutch doesn't change that.

Joke, dude, joke.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait so Mohamed didn't marry Aisha?


I'm confused...is it not true or something?

ok....

"pedophilia" is a mental disorder. It requires more than simply "having sex with a child" to be a "pedophile".

Mohammed married Aisha for family and alliance reasons, and is required by his religion to bang her.

I'm not saying it is ok or makes sense in our culture, but calling him a "pedophile" (a word that only really makes sense in modern Western culture) is incorrect.

His previous and successful sexual marriages to 4 other women, some many years his senior, and lack of any real evidence that he pursued children, or even Aisha for that matter (remember, arranged familial alliance relationships) pretty much confirms that, while that behaviour would be unacceptable in our society, it is not the same as pedophilia

Originally posted by Robtard
I understand that marrying and ****ing little children was culturally acceptable in his day and age, great. Yet I still don't agree with it and the man was a sick ****, imo. Just as I understand owning a negro as a slave-whipping-boy and doing whatever you wish with what was considered your "property" was culturally acceptable in 1820's United States, or parts there of. I still don't think it was okay though and slave owners were sick ****s too.

sure, the act is disgusting

however, "pedophile", the term, actually means something different from how you are using it

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait so Mohamed didn't marry Aisha?


I'm confused...is it not true or something?.

He did marry her. She became his favourite wife and quite powerful after his death.

His marriage to Aisha is one of many controversies in Islam - I have heard Muslim scholars defend it with ''women mature faster in hot areas''.

The problem is not only in the fact he married Aisha - problem is that Muhammed is supposed to be the perfect human being and an example for us all - does that then mean we are to allow 45 year old men to marry 9 year old girls?

If not, then he cannot be that perfect human being and it puts into question a lot of Muhammad's claims.

i have subjective morals and i realize that some morals are based on society and time period... if it is the norm and so long as it doesnt force someone into such a situation it doesnt bother me.. but if they are being forced and the girl or boy are unable to make an informed consent then that might be a problem...

ppl need to look at it like this they dont believe in what you believe and no one is forcing you to live the way someone else lives.. you have no more reason telling an african bushman how to raise his child then the bushman has any right to tell you how to fix your car..

Who cares...

We should ban them from everything.