If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
To be fair, and provide a bit balance, there were major demonstrations against The Life of Brian and The Last Temptation of Christ
Temptation was banned in many areas of the bible belt, faced angry street protests, was banned in a number of countries and the following -
It's a pretty interesting parallel - a fundamentalist religious group unrepresentative of wider religious feelings within their religion.
Life of Brian faced street pickets, bannings by some councils, public protests and public accusations of blasphemy.
Ah, but Christians can tolerate anything. The Catholic Church, correct me if I'm wrong but they ARE part of the Christian Church, can tolerate CHILD RAPE. So, of course they put up with silly films.
Xx
What would Muhammad have done? How would he have reacted if he was being mocked? What example did Muhammad, the supposedly perfect example for mankind, set?
Do we have to travel back in time 1400 years in order to find answers to these questions? No. We only have to refer to the well preserved scriptures of Islam, ie the Quran and Hadith (or both, or one or the other, it doesn't matter which).
The fact is that the “prophet” Muhammad himself ordered the killing of many people who merely mocked or ridiculed or disparaged him. Muhammad was not a pacifist. He was a violent man.
1400 years ago, a man called Ka'bb Ashraf maligned Muhammad, and Muhammad ordered him to be killed, and he was killed. The references for this historical fact are Sahih Bukhari, Book 38, Hadith number 4436 and Sahih Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith number 369.
On another occasion, a slave woman who abused and disparaged Muhammad in front of her slave-owner was stabbed and killed by her slave owner for doing so. When he told Muhammad that he had killed her, Muhammads response was... “Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.” The reference for this historical fact is Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Hadith number 4348.
On another occasion, a woman who abused and disparaged Muhammad was strangled and killed by a man. Muhammad’s response to this brutal murder was... “no recompense was payable for her blood”. The reference for this historical fact is Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Hadith number 4349.
Those are just a few examples of how Muhammad treated such people. He had absolutely no problem with killing people who mocked him.
Now when you spread a belief system, who's founder was inherently a violent man, onto a populace of over 1 billion people, then sure, not all of 1 billion people will become violent, but a disproportionate amount (compared to other religions at least) WILL adopt violent tendencies or support violence.
This is precisely why although not all Muslims are terrorists, a disproportionate number of terrorists are Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims are indeed peaceful and if anything they are UNAWARE of the nitty gritty details of their own religion. Just like many "Christians" who call themselves Christians and celebrate Christmas, but hardly know whats written in the Bible.
So what is the solution? Large scale apostasy amongst Muslims I say. It’s not so easy when you consider the punishment for leaving Islam is death in 8 Islamic countries, but here’s hoping we see progress sooner rather than later.
Yep, Christians are never up in arms about simple bits of art, are they?
Of course, that's just in the UK. I'm sure we could all find examples of protests and attempts to ban things by Christians if we extended the search to the United States. I'm sure we could all find examples of terrorist actions against things that some Christians oppose too. But of course, like the Sikhs protesting a play depicting the treatment of women in their religion, these Christians are portrayed by the media as just a bunch of fundie nutters. But when Anjem Choudary leaflets thousands of homes to get support for his vile protests, and about 20 people show up, it's all just nicely cropped in the newspapers to make it look like there are far more people there. Anjem Choudary or Abu Hamza are shown as the bogeyman, whereas Stephen Green and George Hargreaves are portrayed as a complete joke. Admittedly, in recent years, Choudary does seem to have been portrayed a bit more in this light, which can only be a good thing.
Although I have to say, the intention of the instruction not to draw the prophet is to avoid him turning into the sort of idol that the virgin Mary or Jesus embodies. The effect of the instruction seems to have been to turn him into more of an idol than ever. Like it or not, there are many Muslims that treat the prophet Mohammed with the reverence that should be reserved for god.
That changes the picture dramatically -
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
You are wrong. There is firstly no such thing as the Christian church. That's why the Catholic, Protestant, Anglican etc etc churches exist.
Secondly, whilst I'm a Catholic myself, at least in inclination if not outright practice, you must understand that in no way does the Catholic Church's refusal to act over the child abuse scandal mean that every Catholic condones such things. I wouldn't disparage an entire belief system merely based on how some fuckers have acted under its name. Whilst Matthew 16:19 may be true, it's not a panacea to cover sins.
To create more manageable groups of people who don't really agree with each other on anything of significance?
While it would be ridiculous to indict all people who chose to label themselves Catholic, let's not pretend this is only a problem with some cheeky beggars at the fringe of the organisation; the problem is systemic: it starts at the top with the Bishop of Rome, and works it's way down through all echelons.
While the wording of the Quran hasnt changed, it loses its value immensely in translation.
So far you’ve given this...
So what did it say before it supposedly lost it's value immensely in translation?
Was it speaking of love and peace and pacifism to begin with, and through the process of translation did the meanings change to such an extent that it suddenly spoke of killing and stabbing and strangling?
I can speak 3 languages myself and I can assure you it’s not difficult to translate a story/message from one language to the other without losing the value to such an extent.
Also, what I quoted was translated into English by Muslim translators. Why would a Muslim translator translate the Islamic scriptures in a way which makes it sound WORSE than the original Arabic?
There is no lost value or meaning. What you see is precisely how it was and how it happened.
*Btw I quoted the Hadith, not the Quran (not that it matters).*
For example, nowhere in the Qu'ran does it say that women have to wear
hijabs or burqas, or indeed niqabs. All it says is that women should dress modestly. Yet look at the scores of ways in which it is interpreted and you can see how hard it is to base a belief system around an ambiguous set of, ultimately, moral guidelines rather than anything more concrete.
There's a lot of questions raised based on that, so just wanted to give that a chance to be discussed before the debate turned to the usual criticisms of Islam.
It's understandable that they censored SP - though from what I've read it doesn't sound like the material they censored was particularly inflammatory. The problem is that if you publish anything that's even half-way risky you stand out. As soon as it was clear that the Danish newspaper was getting shit for publishing the pictures, every media outlet throughout the world which claims to espouse the principles of free speech should have re-published the cartoons. Let a fucking jihad be issued against everyone.
The fact of the matter is, Not all muslims will give a damn about the cartoon. For example, My step dad is Muslim, he watched it and laughed. He can take a joke. Just like most christians can, and there are few that cant.
No body has any right to sit here slating any religion that we know nothing about. Nobody knows factually anything that mohamed the prophet did, and for a start he is not the founder of islam, merely a story teller, a prophet just like jesus was. When jesus closed the red sea on all them people trying to attack the others.. was that justified? He killed people, right? we can sit here and argue until were blue in the face, but at the end of the day, some muslims, would probably be very offended watching the cartoon, taking the piss out of one of their prophets, as i would be watching a muslim or islamic show, seing jesus on a crucifix and muslims laughing at him...
Its a personal view point for every person involved, if they are offended by it they have every right to be. who are we to tell them to get over it? Its okey for south park to take the piss cause they do it to everyone? im sure alot of people get pissed off with the show, not just muslims!
so lets try to keep it clean, and to the point. Lets not slate the islam religion...
Theres simply no need for them naive statements what so ever.
As for islam being extreme, its actually not. I can say this because I have traveled and spent alot of time in Islamic muslim communities. Islam is very similar to christianity. There values and sentiments are the same, their comandments in the quaran are pretty much the same, their just more religious, Probably due to the countries islam is generally followed in. Poorer less open countries, with leaders who want the population to follow the Quaran, and keep "controlable", Not like the uk for example, with christians who never go to church, have never read a bible, have sex before marriage, get divorced, steal, kill... etc etc but are still the first to slate another religion saying its too extreme...??
Im NOT saying it doesnt happen in the muslim comunities, but certainly not as much.
Im not bashing any religion, im just very open minded and cant stand other people critizising other religions etc... :banghead:
And the statement about most muslims being terrorists? PLEASE! do some research, see how many christians have dropped bombs! Theres good and bad people in every religion.
Of course they can get offended. What they can't do is threaten violence against those who offended them (which is effectively what has happened here), or attempt to silence criticisms of their religious views through legal means. And Islam appears to be the only current world religion where powerful leaders are on record calling for the deaths of people who criticise their religion. They are not the only religion (or indeed non-religion) to do this in history, of course, but they are the only ones doing it in a way that affects us today. Being able to offend people is massively important. If we can't offend people, we can't discuss things. People who talk about respect for religion have only one motive: to ensure their religion is not subjected to scrutiny. But frankly, if I think that a particular set of beliefs is ridiculous, it would be disingenuous to pussyfoot around that fact, and give it some sort of false respect I wouldn't give to someone who thought they'd be abducted by aliens, or that Elvis was still alive. And maybe if the reaction wasn't so hysterical, it would be a less tempting target for the satirists. In fact, I haven't seen the South Park episode, but the idea of Mohammed in a bear costume sounds like a deliberate satire on the predicted reaction, not a satire about the beliefs or the prophet himself. Which is probably why your step-dad found it so funny. Not that I would have any issue with a well-researched satire of the beliefs themselves.
Other than that, I think most people on the thread have been quite clear to distinguish between the extremists and the general muslim population, and draw parallels with the way other groups respond to criticism of their views.
Not all who are offended will want violence etc
Even I, admit thats a tad too far! But then, if someone takes their religion seriously and is offended by it, i dont see why they shouldnt be able to stand up for it, ovbiously in non-violent ways of course!!
No one has said anyone shouldn't stand up and be counted for when they're offended, but only the extremists will stand up and be counted for. Because fear is the dominating factor in their messages.
The violent protestors will always be counted for over their silent counterparts - even if they were offended. Many of these extremists will even turn on their "own" (so to say).
I wasnt out ruling someones comment i was merely pointing out that yes, its is an image thats portrayed on muslims, and anyone with an ounce of common sense will realise not all muslims are terrorists. Good and bad in every religion blah blah blah.
How ever, im not going to comment again, Its useless, i was merely expressing an opinion of my own after reading said comments in this thread and not liking the slating people were giving islam as a whole. Ill shut my mouth from now on.. continue
Of course it fits in. Its my opinion, it doesnt need any justification.
If they are offended, stand up for it in a non violent way. SIMPLE. nothing more to it. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
(i'll be leaving this site soon)
Totally disagree with any sort of racism, prejudice anything ..
And it seems to be all im faced with on a day to day basis.. very depressing actually.
Cant be bothered having my opinions, which i rightfully Know are the correct and moral view points, Slated or be made to justify them... Really am done with justifying myself, having pointless arguements with trolls.
Not calling anyone here a troll by the way, just not in a great mood to have to deal with this!
On a daily basis, most the racism i see is usually directed towards muslims, Im sick of it, I was merely trying to calm this thread down before it got out of hand or naive trolls commenting, although there are some posts in this thread which are pretty racist actually. Anyway, im actually packing it all in, deleting any internet based account i have... unfortunatly theres too many idiots who have no idea how naive they are... and today has probably been the final straw for me with what ive seen today! :wave:
Muslim isn't a race...
Xx
Personally, I'm with x</3x on most of this.. As a faith group, Muslims are treated unfairly. We must remember it's the minority who will threaten people about a cartoon, going back to the main subject here, and the same goes for all faiths! Christianity included here, no religion is perfect, no religion has followers who purely do good.
Xx
I don't get offended when people in insult my religon christianity because I know it takes a hell of a lot of convincing before someone can accept the christian faith. For example I was brought up a christian but fell away from the faith by the age of 11 because I simply didn't believe it was true anymore. But over the intervening years gradually learned more and more about it until I was convinced it was true and decided to return to the faith.
Therefore I don't hold it against anyone who dismisses Christianity because I know that until they have seen proof of sort sort how can they be expected to believe it. Also some of the most enthusiastic christians were once haters of it. The best examples being Saul in the New Testament who started out persecuting christians but then later went onto write a large part of the Bible. And ex gang member Nicky Cruz who once threatened to kill a christian street preacher but later went onto become one of America's most famous evangalists.
The Alpha course does a good job of providing evidence to skeptics, athiests and agnostics.
But anyway, as other have pointed out, there are examples of terrorist actions by Christians, and evidence that these violent actions are increasing. Are you sure that all Christians are able to take people mocking their beliefs publicly? Yep, real tolerant. And incidentally, no those examples aren't just a nice sing song to show their disapproval at the play. They were complemented with attempts to legally prosecute the people who wrote the play and have it banned. Do you support their attempts to silence people by force, who want to perform a little play? Do you support their threats of picket a cancer charity because they were going to accept a £3000 donation from the producers? They might not be shouting death to anyone (which is only evidence that their PR is better), but it is exactly the same sort of bullying you see from certain fringe muslims groups. Or maybe you should read some of the threatening letters sent to people who have publicly criticised Christianity. Now obviously you see this sort of stuff in many sections of society, about many different subjects, which is kinda my point.
Where Islam has a particular issue is actually at the top end of the faith, because their nutters are in charge of countries, and have no sanctions against calling for the death of a citizen of another country. But if the Pope called for the death of someone, not that I'm suggesting he would, there would likely be enough nutters in that faith for someone to give it a go.
ETA: oh dear, I've just sat through that and it's all going very nicely until he gets to the stage of actually providing evidence that Jesus is the son of God (which of course just presumes God, but I'll let him off for that). Old Testament prophecies? Are you shitting me? He just completely ignores the possibilities that the bible has been put together in a way so as to fulfil prophecies, by people with an interest in it being true, instead focusing on debunking a ridiculous argument I've never heard anyone make, about Jesus being some sort of super conman who was deliberately fulfilling the prophecies. His "evidence" is basically an assumption that accounts of miracles were true, and a gushing speech about how great his moral teachings were, despite anyone with even a basic knowledge of history knowing that they were largely plagiarized from other groups of ethics, and far less advanced than other civilisations at the time.