"Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" causing waves.

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*

Yes, piggy-backing is an amazing job if they paid me for me, but as you can see, I already gave credit and merely pointed out what someone said previously. Forgive me if that's illegal. Can you say you've never agreed with some one else post or shared a same fact with someone that you've never pointed out before? Wow, you're amazing! Marry me!!

And as for the Hindu friend there, it is a known fact that sadhus and brahmins tend to wear "turbans". I say this in quotation marks because there's a word for it. Heard of the tip of the tongue phenomenon? It's a right ole biatch sometimes. Anyway, (some) Hindu people believe it is a sign of respect to cover their heads during prayers - hence the religious figures you've posted (gorgeous guys BTW - you have great taste!!) have their heads covered.

Also, to help you with your argument, you'll find that at a Hindu wedding, the groom wear a turban too! Awesome, no?

And also, women cover their heads with a sari. (Especially common in the olden times) It's a sign of respect. Not the same thing as a turban, but hey, what the hell, I though I'd pitch this in the post anyway.

But that being said, a turban had great significance in Sikhism. In Hinduism, it's mostly a fashion accessory (haha!) and for priests and others to wear as a sign of respect during prayers. Anytime else, well, that’s just odd.

PS - aren't you adorable!

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
[B]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*

Yes, piggy-backing is an amazing job if they paid me for me, but as you can see, I already gave credit and merely pointed out what someone said previously. Forgive me if that's illegal. Can you say you've never agreed with some one else post or shared a same fact with someone that you've never pointed out before? Wow, you're amazing! Marry me!!

And as for the Hindu friend there, it is a known fact that sadhus and brahmins tend to wear "turbans". I say this in quotation marks because there's a word for it. Heard of the tip of the tongue phenomenon? It's a right ole biatch sometimes. Anyway, (some) Hindu people believe it is a sign of respect to cover their heads during prayers - hence the religious figures you've posted (gorgeous guys BTW - you have great taste!!) have their heads covered.

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

I have been one of Jehovah's Witness for over 30 years so I believe I can answer from experience.

Yes we do believe in Jesus and that he is the Son of God. JW's believe that the bible teaches that Jesus is the subservient Son of God, not God. It says that he is the son of God in John 3:16. If you look at accurate translations, you can see we follow what they say. If you were to look up the meaning of the word 'God', it is defined as anyone who is worshiped. While Jesus is a mighty god, he is not the almighty God.

Scriptural Reasoning:
Jehovah's Witnesses often hear that some believe that Jehovah's Witnesses have an altered Bible translation that they use to support doctrine, however virtually any Bible can be consulted to clearly see the following, and Witnesses are willing to (and often do) use other translations.

Did Jesus say he was Almighty God or equal to Almighty God? No, he said quite the opposite. Review John 17:3, and John 20:17 for starters.

1. Common sense tells us that Jesus didn't pray to himself, but he prayed to his heavenly father, almighty God Jehovah. This was the same Almighty God that all Israelites/Jews prayed to.
2. Common sense as well as Bible prophecy tells us that for Jesus to have truly died for our sins, he would have had to be lifeless or actually dead for a time (3 days) for this to be true. If he didn't really die, then what sense do the scriptures make that speak of his dying for all mankind's sins? So, if he indeed actually died, who resurrected him? It would have had to be Almighty God, the Father Jehovah.

3. In Matthew 6:9-13, Jesus instructed his disciples how to pray. He told them to pray to the Father - never did he indicate that we should pray to him or to his mother or anyone else. He did say, however, to pray to the Father in his name - because it is by means of him (Jesus) that corrupt humans have any approach to Almighty God.

4. If Jesus were Almighty God, why would he say he couldn't do anything of his own accord? Read John 5:19, John 14:28 and John 10:36. In Matthew 4:10, Jesus quoted a scripture in Deuteronomy 6:13 which clearly indicates WHO is to be worshiped as Almighty God.

5. Why would Colossians 1:15-17 refer to Jesus Christ as the, "beginning of all creation" if he was the Almighty Creator?

So indeed, Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Jesus Christ and that he is the son of Almighty God, Jehovah (Yahweh or YHWH). Jehovah's Witnesses need no special or 'altered' bible to prove that - it's found throughout the bible and consistent with the Bible's message of Christ's kingdom.
While JW's do not view Jesus in exactly the same way as the Christian Church does, they do believe that Jesus is the Son of God (Jehovah) and that he (Jesus) is our Lord and Savior - that only by means of his shed blood does mankind have any possibility of redemption.

"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

... 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.