"Everbody Draw Muhammad" Day

[fakeitormakeit2]

The claim you made was "if a woman accepts a ride from you, it's legal to rape her. this is true in sharia countries."

 

That's not true. It's total BS.

 

In the Qatif rape case (which you are referencing) the victim was punished for being alone with a male not her husband. That's barbaric and wrong, but it is NOT the same as saying that in that situation it's "legal to rape her". If it were, the rapists wouldn't have been punished.

 

A classic example of how people get facts wrong, twist things around, and start ugly rumors.

 

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?contentID=2009020828735&method=home.regcon

 

allah akbar

 

oh and http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/17/world/in-pakistan-rape-victims-are-the-criminals.html?pagewanted=1

How dare you, you are extremely ignorant. Was it truly necessary to say Allah akbar there? Excessive stupidity like that is why Arabs, Christian or Muslim, find Americans disrespectful and bully-ish. The depiction of Mohammad to combact a specific instance in the censorship in which the work of an artist was ruined is acceptable, but ignorant bursts of garbage like pointlessly saying Allah akbar? What is your motivation for saying that other than pure mockery?

Nice job assuming he's an American.

I wasn't assuming he was American I'm saying that's why Arabs don't like Americans. I live in America and I was pelted with food because my friends and I were speaking Arabic and we talking our "terrorist Allah-loving language". From my experiences, the general American populace that I've dealt with dislikes Middle Eastern people and displays much ignorance.

 

In your words "nice job assuming" I was assuming anything.

[Skull]

The claim you made was "if a woman accepts a ride from you, it's legal to rape her. this is true in sharia countries."

 

That's not true. It's total BS.

 

In the Qatif rape case (which you are referencing) the victim was punished for being alone with a male not her husband. That's barbaric and wrong, but it is NOT the same as saying that in that situation it's "legal to rape her". If it were, the rapists wouldn't have been punished.

 

A classic example of how people get facts wrong, twist things around, and start ugly rumors.

 

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?contentID=2009020828735&method=home.regcon

 

allah akbar

 

oh and http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/17/world/in-pakistan-rape-victims-are-the-criminals.html?pagewanted=1

How dare you, you are extremely ignorant. Was it truly necessary to say Allah akbar there? Excessive stupidity like that is why Arabs, Christian or Muslim, find Americans disrespectful and bully-ish. The depiction of Mohammad to combact a specific instance in the censorship in which the work of an artist was ruined is acceptable, but ignorant bursts of garbage like pointlessly saying Allah akbar? What is your motivation for saying that other than pure mockery?

Nice job assuming he's an American.

I wasn't assuming he was American I'm saying that's why Arabs don't like Americans. I live in America and I was pelted with food because my friends and I were speaking Arabic and we talking our "terrorist Allah-loving language". From my experiences, the general American populace that I've dealt with dislikes Middle Eastern people and displays much ignorance.

Being dumb and rude shouldn't be something you automatically relate to being an American. For someone who advocates against hatred and stereotypes, you're being very hypocritical.

 

Also, you were assuming and now you're trying to cover your [wagon]. Either way, you're being stereotypical and honestly fairly insulting. There are a hell of a lot of Americans who are Muslim or Middle Eastern as you should know or have absolutely no issues with either of those groups. There are also people in every country in the world that do hate them. It's a bit unfair to just say "Americans display much ignorance" just because that's where you've seen it from. Is it [cabbage] that that happens to you? Absolutely and I'm sorry about it.

 

Edit: This looks like this may turn into an argument I want no part of. I'm not going to touch this thread anymore.

[Alg]

Nice job assuming he's an American.

For a Canadian that hates the US he sure acts like us down south... :mrgreen:

[Faux]

How dare you, you are extremely ignorant. Was it truly necessary to say Allah akbar there? Excessive stupidity like that is why Arabs, Christian or Muslim, find Americans disrespectful and bully-ish. The depiction of Mohammad to combact a specific instance in the censorship in which the work of an artist was ruined is acceptable, but ignorant bursts of garbage like pointlessly saying Allah akbar? What is your motivation for saying that other than pure mockery?

 

You have no idea how much you made me laugh. It's acceptable to depict Mohammad but you're telling me I'm censored from saying a phrase? The irony in your post is incredible because it shows just how much you don't understand.

 

Don't call anyone ignorant, hypocrite.

 

Nice job assuming he's an American.

For a Canadian that hates the US he sure acts like us down south... :mrgreen:

 

Ugh please, I know you'd like to think you're on the same level as me, but not even close. Stick to playing clickscape.

[Alg]

I seem to have accidentally broken the quote tag.

Nice job assuming he's an American.

For a Canadian that hates the US he sure acts like us down south... :mrgreen:

 

Ugh please, I know you'd like to think you're on the same level as me, but not even close. Stick to playing clickscape.

This is honestly the best argument you can come up with?

You simply aren't worth the effort. I'll be waiting for when you stop being such an egotistical bigot.

[fakeitormakeit2]

How dare you, you are extremely ignorant. Was it truly necessary to say Allah akbar there? Excessive stupidity like that is why Arabs, Christian or Muslim, find Americans disrespectful and bully-ish. The depiction of Mohammad to combact a specific instance in the censorship in which the work of an artist was ruined is acceptable, but ignorant bursts of garbage like pointlessly saying Allah akbar? What is your motivation for saying that other than pure mockery?

 

You have no idea how much you made me laugh. It's acceptable to depict Mohammad but you're telling me I'm censored from saying a phrase? The irony in your post is incredible because it shows just how much you don't understand.

 

Don't call anyone ignorant, hypocrite.

It is easy to over simplify things to the degree where they become out of context. I said one was for combating extremism and the other one was because of your genuine wish to mock. Tell me, did you saying Allah akbar add to the discussion?

 

@ Skull_Emblem I didn't mean to imply Americans, I meant from my experience though than again you are right, there are the rotten of every group [but I did make it clear it was from my own experience I say many Americans are antisemitic (in the sense of Middle Eastern)]. I apologize if my statement was offensive, but again I said keywords "from my experiences" and "American populace I've dealt with". Nonetheless it might have seemed to be sweeping which I did not mean and I retract any of that connotation. My association of Semitic discrimination and a large fraction of American populace was wrongly evaluated on personal experience.

[Saru Inc]

I think Christians in general are hypocritical and judgmental etc.

All Christians are hypocrites. Still doesn't stop us from being Christian. We all strive to be like Christ, but we all fail miserably. Its what defines our humanity. Any Christian claiming not to be a hypocrite is delusional, and I recommend that you don't listen to them.

 

 

This whole thing about drawing Muhammad is punishable by death irks me, especially in this context. South Park offends everyone, that is it's point. Why one group feels they're so special that they could take laws into their own hands is beyond me. But then again, I've never lived in a theocracy. Silencing speech with violence is terrorism.

 

On the other hand, offending a large group of people for the actions of a few nuts is also reprehensible. Have your day and make your point; but after this leave it alone. It'll be interesting to see if this protest goes on much past today.

 

Agreed. The only hypocrites, are the ones who deny being a hypocrite. What I'm saying is Christian do that, (AT LEAST THE ONES I KNOW, THIS MAY NOT APPLY TO THE ONES IN ____ AREA.) but take it to a whole nother level.

 

Because Christians are normal people too? They commit the same sins as Atheists etc. They just believe in repentance. And what about the people slaughtering Christians? Btw, I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I just wanted you to back up your statement. I think Christians in general are hypocritical and judgmental etc.

In my own cynical way I'd think people in general are hypocritical and judgmental. It's easier that way.

People are going to kill each other regardless of religion. Either they want something that the other has, the other person is different than they are, they pissed them off, and so on. Except in any society that kind of killing is frowned on, so religions are used to justify it. After all, who's going to complain if I say that I killed that guy because God said it's the right thing to do? You're not going to call out God on this are you? Ignoring the fact that I now have all of his stuff, of course.

And there were the many wars that people seem to ignore that had nothing to do with religion...

 

Though I think I recall reading/hearing that the point of the rule against depicting Mohammad is based on the idea that a man shouldn't be revered more than a God. Generally, the attention belongs to the God and not the prophet (Which may be why Jesus was elevated to the level of 'Son of God'). And that leads to a problem with devoting your life to very vague teachings that require interpretation and taking them at face value.

 

Yep. And I think that the people (you know who you are :o ) who hate on religion, know that many people simply use it as a guise, and don't follow it. Say, someone wants to kill their family, they say Jesus told them to do it, ta-da declared mentally unstable no death sentence etc. They tend to ignore that. Religion has brought in so much good to the world, has it brought in bad? Well of course, but the question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Well thats more of an personal subjective ethics question only you (not you aka ALG. You, the reader) should decide.

 

 

Edit:

 

We all strive to be like Christ, but we all fail miserably.

Some of you strive to be like Christ.

 

Lots of you just do whatever the hell you want and then construct excuses for it from your books.

 

Again, you cannot generalize about any of these groups.

 

 

So in other words you have no proof, except the news. Ok. Still haven't found it in the Bible.

Proof of what, exactly?

 

If the New Testament is so peaceful, why is it that most of the last 2,000 years has been filled with Christians slaughtering other peoples, or each other?

 

Again -- it's not the book, it's what you do with it.

The New Testament is actually extremely peaceful and the entire point of Jesus's ministry is to show Jesus would be a Messiah of peace rather than war.

Even if I accept that the NT is "peaceful", that doesn't seem to have translated into anything meaningful in terms of peaceful behavior by Christians over the last 2,000 years.

 

Just one obvious example would be the widespread anti-Semitism in Christianity, which existed for centuries, and was indirectly responsible for the Holocaust. It's only in the last generation or two that the RC church has finally moved beyond this. So it's not like Christianity has been "more evolved" than Islam for a long time or anything.

 

It doesn't matter how wonderfully idyllic Jesus is in your books when people ignore it, commit evil acts and then use "we're flawed" as an excuse for it.

 

All of this really goes to my overall point, that trying to prove that one religion is more peaceful than another by cherry-picking quotes out of "holy" books is utterly pointless.

 

if a woman accepts a ride from you, it's legal to rape her. this is true in sharia countries.

Prove it. I have never heard of any such thing.

 

Whaaaa? First off, Sharia law has many barbaric traditions, while I have not heard of this one, it doesn't seem that unlikely. Widespread antisemitism? Ok. Only Christians did that? Only Christians started that? be specific. Once again, if you say the Holocaust was Christians fault because Hitler was Christian, then you sorta just lost your credibility. Once again, if a tyrant is Christian, but slaughters millions of people, then he is Christian in name only, which is oh so much different.

 

And Qeltar, what is your explanation about Atheists who commit violent, or even more violent acts than Christians? No religion there buddy. Simply human depravity, fresh from the gene pool. AND IT EXISTS IN ALL OF US. If you say you believe in God, but give into the Depravity... It begs to question. Qeltar, if someone had a cross on their neck, rosary in a hand, and a shotgun shooting childrens heads off... (Yes, I know this is an exaggerated circumstance) would you still say it was religions fault? Why? What LOGICAL bridge would have you end up at the decision?

[Faux]

It is easy to over simplify things to the degree where they become out of context. I said one was for combating extremism and the other one was because of your genuine wish to mock. Tell me, did you saying Allah akbar add to the discussion?

 

 

Sorry what? That sounds like lame excuses to me.

 

I couldn't simplify your rant more than it already was. You fail to see how ironic that you were so heated over one phrase while at the same time commending it's "fine" to just draw Mohammed. It's not just about the depiction of some worthless prophet - that would be way too easy. It's about the censorship that extremists envelop on people through terror. That's the idea you fail to comprehend because you just went raging.

 

You don't have the right to dictate what people can criticize. We (not sure if this includes you) live in a free society.

[Nero]

Radicals are the only people who would get offended by the drawings. Islam is steadfastly against idol worship, they think its corrupting to the message that the person (jesus, muhammad, jesammad, muhasus) offered, so they don't want people to have a picture of what Muhammad looked like. Which is stupid considering everyone has a mental picture of what Muhammed looked like,it's essentially asking people to turn off their brain.

 

Rambling aside, I think the whole 'Let's draw Muhammad Day derp derp' was just a knee jerk reaction to some blokes getting threatened. Who the [bleep] cares, from both sides. Don't draw him and don't threaten to kill people that do, because if your sure of your religion, then you can rest easy in the knowledge that the other person will spend an enternity in hell burning and screaming and yadayadayada.

[fakeitormakeit2]

It is easy to over simplify things to the degree where they become out of context. I said one was for combating extremism and the other one was because of your genuine wish to mock. Tell me, did you saying Allah akbar add to the discussion?

 

 

Sorry what? That sounds like lame excuses to me.

 

I couldn't simplify your rant more than it already was. You fail to see how ironic that you were so heated over one phrase while at the same time commending it's "fine" to just draw Mohammed. It's not just about the depiction of some worthless prophet - that would be way too easy. It's about the censorship that extremists envelop on people through terror. That's the idea you fail to comprehend because you just went raging.

 

You don't have the right to dictate what people can criticize. We (not sure if this includes you) live in a free society.

It was the principle in which you stated that one phrase out of ignorance. Again you say things like worthless prophet, this is unnecessary and you're going out of your way to mock anything that isn't your belief. And I was heated over the phrase you used because of the motivation in which you used it, you're just being pragmatic in looking at the situations. And I understand that extremists push their laws on others through terror but the ignorance you spew so readily is a cause of extremism.

 

I don't have the right to dictate what people can criticize, I was stating my opinion seeing as how it is my right to do so. Again you go out of your way to take shots at people, "not sure if this includes you", is that really necessary you pompous child?

[Saru Inc]

^^Support. Atheists never think that there can be atheists extremists, in fact some even live on this forum. Think about it.

[Romy]

Guys, I know that topic encourages strong feelings for some of you, and that is exactly why I want to keep it open.

 

 

So please, avoid snide comments and personal attacks from now on ;).

[Nadril]

^^Support. Atheists never think that there can be atheists extremists, in fact some even live on this forum. Think about it.

 

Have you ever heard of an atheist murdering someone because they were religious?

 

Just saying.

[qeltar]

Yep. And I think that the people (you know who you are :o ) who hate on religion, know that many people simply use it as a guise, and don't follow it. Say, someone wants to kill their family, they say Jesus told them to do it, ta-da declared mentally unstable no death sentence etc. They tend to ignore that.

If you're referring to me, I'm pretty sure I specifically said that some people do that. But many more really do commit acts of violence because they think their imaginary supernatural beings told them to, either directly or through their interpretations of various books.

 

Whaaaa? First off, Sharia law has many barbaric traditions, while I have not heard of this one, it doesn't seem that unlikely.

It "seems" that way because of your own biases. But that doesn't really matter -- it's not true, regardless of how it "seems".

 

Widespread antisemitism? Ok. Only Christians did that? Only Christians started that? be specific.

Most antisemitism over the last 2,000 years has been due to, and with the explicit approval of, Christian churches and leaders. It's not even a matter under debate, just do some reading.

 

Once again, if you say the Holocaust was Christians fault because Hitler was Christian, then you sorta just lost your credibility.

The Holocaust has its roots in hatred of Jews propagated by the Catholic church. It is very evident in Hitler's writings and those of his heroes and contemporaries. Again, do some reading.

 

That doesn't mean that it is the fault of all Christians. But it is offered as evidence that Christians who think they are so far advanced in terms of eschewing violence compared to Muslims have short memories.

 

And that's just one example.

 

And Qeltar, what is your explanation about Atheists who commit violent, or even more violent acts than Christians?

Not sure what your point is. I never said religion was the *only* reason why people commit violent acts. It's just one reason.

 

What's tragic about it is that it is a completely *unnecessary* reason. It's violence based on myths, superstition, nonsense.

 

If you again, educate yourself a bit, you'll find out that it's not atheists that the prisons are full of. Religious people constantly act like religion is necessary for moral or ethical behavior, but it's simply not born out by the evidence. Secular countries also have lower incidences of violent crime.

 

Qeltar, if someone had a cross on their neck, rosary in a hand, and a shotgun shooting childrens heads off... (Yes, I know this is an exaggerated circumstance) would you still say it was religions fault? Why? What LOGICAL bridge would have you end up at the decision?

Silly example.

 

But when someone slaughters 10 million Jews, Romas, and others with cyanide and burns them in ovens, while proclaiming he is "doing God's work", what do *you* call *that*?

[Skully]

The claim you made was "if a woman accepts a ride from you, it's legal to rape her. this is true in sharia countries."

 

That's not true. It's total BS.

 

In the Qatif rape case (which you are referencing) the victim was punished for being alone with a male not her husband. That's barbaric and wrong, but it is NOT the same as saying that in that situation it's "legal to rape her". If it were, the rapists wouldn't have been punished.

 

A classic example of how people get facts wrong, twist things around, and start ugly rumors.

 

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?contentID=2009020828735&method=home.regcon

 

allah akbar

 

oh and http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/17/world/in-pakistan-rape-victims-are-the-criminals.html?pagewanted=1

How dare you, you are extremely ignorant. Was it truly necessary to say Allah akbar there? Excessive stupidity like that is why Arabs, Christian or Muslim, find Americans disrespectful and bully-ish. The depiction of Mohammad to combact a specific instance in the censorship in which the work of an artist was ruined is acceptable, but ignorant bursts of garbage like pointlessly saying Allah akbar? What is your motivation for saying that other than pure mockery?

 

Calm down. No need to get your turban in a twist, he does have a point. Also as said above you are being very hypocritical there, oh and btw, if you hate Americans so much, why the hell do you live there? I'm not American, but love it or leave it son. :)

[Azvareth]

Calm down. No need to get your turban in a twist

 

What is this [cabbage].

[Skully]

Calm down. No need to get your turban in a twist

 

What is this [cabbage].

An expression meaning don't get mad...?

[Faux]

It was the principle in which you stated that one phrase out of ignorance. Again you say things like worthless prophet, this is unnecessary and you're going out of your way to mock anything that isn't your belief. And I was heated over the phrase you used because of the motivation in which you used it, you're just being pragmatic in looking at the situations. And I understand that extremists push their laws on others through terror but the ignorance you spew so readily is a cause of extremism.

 

I don't have the right to dictate what people can criticize, I was stating my opinion seeing as how it is my right to do so. Again you go out of your way to take shots at people, "not sure if this includes you", is that really necessary you pompous child?

/sigh

 

I included "not sure.." because I honestly wasn't sure if you lived in a free country. For all I know you're posting from the Mid East.

 

And you're still missing the point. This whole thread is about freedom of speech. It's about the ability to MOCK your religion and not being censored for it. I have every right thanks to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. It's along the same line that people are able to mock Judaism, Christianity, etc. without any repercussions - why is Islam exempted from that? It wasn't out of ignorance - it was in the spirit of the thread. You failing to understand that goes to show you really don't get why people are doing this whole thing to begin with.

 

So if I want to say allah akbar, I will.

 

allah akbar, religion of peace, etc.

 

As Faulkner said, We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it.

[Azvareth]

Calm down. No need to get your turban in a twist

 

What is this [cabbage].

An expression meaning don't get mad...?

 

Heh, yeah. Never you mind my thinly-veiled racist remarks; it's called expressions. So that means it's alright.

 

This forum.

[Skully]

Calm down. No need to get your turban in a twist

 

What is this [cabbage].

An expression meaning don't get mad...?

 

Heh, yeah. Never you mind my thinly-veiled racist remarks; it's called expressions. So that means it's alright.

 

This forum.

 

Damn you and your stupid political correctness.

[obfuscator]

Calm down. No need to get your turban in a twist

 

What is this [cabbage].

An expression meaning don't get mad...?

 

Heh, yeah. Never you mind my thinly-veiled racist remarks; it's called expressions. So that means it's alright.

 

This forum.

 

Damn you and your stupid political correctness.

 

If you were on the side being insulted, I'm sure you wouldn't be saying the same thing. It isn't even as much about "political correctness" as much as it is about being polite and treating people with respect.

[Bouwzie]

Calm down. No need to get your turban in a twist

 

What is this [cabbage].

An expression meaning don't get mad...?

 

Heh, yeah. Never you mind my thinly-veiled racist remarks; it's called expressions. So that means it's alright.

 

This forum.

 

Damn you and your stupid political correctness.

 

If you were on the side being insulted, I'm sure you wouldn't be saying the same thing. It isn't even as much about "political correctness" as much as it is about being polite and treating people with respect.

 

Yet he didn't even get insulted.

[Saru Inc]

But when someone slaughters 10 million Jews, Romas, and others with cyanide and burns them in ovens, while proclaiming he is "doing God's work", what do *you* call *that*?

A crazy person >.<

[1_man_army]

[hide]

Calm down. No need to get your turban in a twist

 

What is this [cabbage].

An expression meaning don't get mad...?

 

Heh, yeah. Never you mind my thinly-veiled racist remarks; it's called expressions. So that means it's alright.

 

This forum.

 

Damn you and your stupid political correctness.

 

If you were on the side being insulted, I'm sure you wouldn't be saying the same thing. It isn't even as much about "political correctness" as much as it is about being polite and treating people with respect.

[/hide]

Yet he didn't even get insulted.

 

You don't need to be insulted to be able to empathise with those who are.

[anonymous1234]

[hide]

Calm down. No need to get your turban in a twist

 

What is this [cabbage].

An expression meaning don't get mad...?

 

Heh, yeah. Never you mind my thinly-veiled racist remarks; it's called expressions. So that means it's alright.

 

This forum.

 

Damn you and your stupid political correctness.

 

If you were on the side being insulted, I'm sure you wouldn't be saying the same thing. It isn't even as much about "political correctness" as much as it is about being polite and treating people with respect.

[/hide]

Yet he didn't even get insulted.

 

You don't need to be insulted to be able to empathise with those who are.

 

This may be a bit off topic, but what would have been more offensive? The turban remark, or the more common "Getting his panties in a bunch?"

 

I find both of them equally (although very mildly) offensive, because one is a shot as his religion, while the other would be a shot at his sexual identity. Which one do you think is more offensive