Thorp and Sailor's Grave Board

muslims

serenity - 2-6-2006 at 03:58 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/04/cartoon.wrap.sat....

well, at least i now know what you americans feel, and i have to say, i hate. i fucking hate it.

Discipline - 2-6-2006 at 04:48 PM

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke. They don't seem to give a fuck about all the insulting cartoons of Jesus that have been coming out for years now. They don't seem to mind a huge anti-semetic mindset. But publish a cartoon about Mohammed and they start rioting. Fuck them. The police should tear gas the motherfuckers.

serenity - 2-6-2006 at 04:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Discipline
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke. They don't seem to give a fuck about all the insulting cartoons of Jesus that have been coming out for years now. They don't seem to mind a huge anti-semetic mindset. But publish a cartoon about Mohammed and they start rioting. Fuck them. The police should tear gas the motherfuckers.


the syrian government allowed the protesters to burn down the embassy.

seriously, denmark is not a muslim country, and sure, its forbidden in islam to draw muhammed, but that "rule" shouldnt apply to non-muslims.

DaveMoral - 2-6-2006 at 08:13 PM

Why would Muslims ever make an insulting cartoon about Jesus? He's mentioned more in the Qur'an than any other Prophet.

The cartoons were done in bad taste. Muslims don't make insulting cartoons of Prophets, all Prophets including everyone that Jews and Christians embrace, are sacred figures in Islam.

I could understand a cartoon poking fun at the general Arab population, as Arabs do the same with Jews/Isrealis in their satirical cartoons, but to target the figurehead of religion is shameful and in bad taste. Christians would be pissed too if there were insulting cartoons about Jesus made by Danes. Perhaps not pissed enough to riot, but pissed.

The rioting is shit though.

PS, I'm Muslim.

Discipline - 2-6-2006 at 08:34 PM

I didn't mean Jesus cartoons made by muslims, I meant cartoons in general made by anybody.
My point was that the muslim community has never spoken up or rioted because of somebody making fun of Jesus. But insult Mohammad and people go nuts. It's hypocritical.

serenity - 2-6-2006 at 08:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveMoral
Why would Muslims ever make an insulting cartoon about Jesus? He's mentioned more in the Qur'an than any other Prophet.

The cartoons were done in bad taste. Muslims don't make insulting cartoons of Prophets, all Prophets including everyone that Jews and Christians embrace, are sacred figures in Islam.

I could understand a cartoon poking fun at the general Arab population, as Arabs do the same with Jews/Isrealis in their satirical cartoons, but to target the figurehead of religion is shameful and in bad taste. Christians would be pissed too if there were insulting cartoons about Jesus made by Danes. Perhaps not pissed enough to riot, but pissed.

The rioting is shit though.

PS, I'm Muslim.


cant agree. denmark, where the cartoon was published, is as seculiarized one could ever be, and would not have been offended.

jesus is being made fun of pretty much all over the world, but you dont see riots in "christian" countries.

DaveMoral - 2-7-2006 at 12:44 AM

I'm not saying Arabs aren't backasswards... shit, Aghanistan has been bombed into the 15th century twice in the last 30 years... they're fucked. And Arab countries have fucked up dictators that do their best to keep people in the dark.

The West in general is largely secularized and even the most zealous believers aren't all that zealous for their faith. So the question as to whether or not that is a good thing is up in the air as far as I'm concerned. And frankly, Arabs have a hard time conceiving that the Danish government isn't responsible for what the free press does or says because they don't have free press.

It's a fucked up, complicated world... especially the Muslim world. Though I wouldn't paint Muslims with a broad brush regarding this whole cartoon thing. If the majority of us were in a riotous uproar about these "satirical" cartoons the world would be fucked. Besides, they're just fuckin' up their own countries at this point, at least there's not be full scale rioting in Europe. The demonstrators that "clashed with police" in Copenhagen were no doubt provoked by said police... why do I say that? Because police tend to provoke ANY group of demonstrators.

DaveMoral - 2-7-2006 at 12:45 AM

Colbert just did a funny bit on the whole thing though.

DeathByForce - 2-7-2006 at 03:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveMoral
The demonstrators that "clashed with police" in Copenhagen were no doubt provoked by said police... why do I say that? Because police tend to provoke ANY group of demonstrators.


That's not true, I've been to some very peaceful protests.

It's usually the jackass protestors who try to intimidate the police and end up getting what they deserve.

serenity - 2-7-2006 at 06:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveMoral
Besides, they're just fuckin' up their own countries at this point, at least there's not be full scale rioting in Europe.


theyre attacking and injuring european staff in their stormings.

who knows if itll be full-scale rioting? in france last year a shitload of muslims among others had paris and other major french cities on their knees.

DaveMoral - 2-8-2006 at 01:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by serenity
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveMoral
Besides, they're just fuckin' up their own countries at this point, at least there's not be full scale rioting in Europe.


theyre attacking and injuring european staff in their stormings.

who knows if itll be full-scale rioting? in france last year a shitload of muslims among others had paris and other major french cities on their knees.


I'm well aware of what went down in France. Still, thus far Muslims in Europe have been extremely sober in how they've dealt with this.

You know what's interesting is that the Danish newspaper that printed the offensive cartoon rejected caricatures of Jesus prior to this incident that they deemed possibly offensive to Christians... that's just suspect. According to expert satirical cartoonists the cartoon in question actually has no point as cartoon satire... there's not political objective other than to be blatantly offensive to Muslims on the whole(you've got to understand that this cartoon isn't just offensive to so-called "extremists" or "fundamentalists" but to ALL 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, be they heavily religious or mainly secular).

It's not even a matter of it being a drawing of Muhammad that is the problem, the problem is that he was depicted as having a bomb in his turban perpetuating the notion that Islam is a violent religion. Granted the foolish rioters aren't helping any, but an obvious provocation like this cartoon should have been reconsidered by the editors of the newspaper.

Everyone knows that the Muslim nations carry with them a long memory, and an age-old tradition of holding grudges forever. They're still stinging from the Crusades and with Muslim nations currently occupied by non-Muslim foreign forces and Muslims all over the world feeling constantly under attack such a caricature is without a doubt like lighting the fuse on a bomb, it's like throwing a match in a powder keg.

I don't like the way Muslims are acting, and I don't like the depiction of Muhammad. Personally I'd be just as pissed off with an offensive depiction of Jesus or Moses or otherwise. Shit, I've been routinely offended by Comedy Central in the past week by some commercial about "video games" which depicted Muhammad and Moses fighting each other and Moses decapitates Muhammad with the tablet of commandments. I find that exceedingly offensive, as Muslims consider Moses and Muhammad to not only be prophets of Islam but very much akin to each other.


Quote:

It's usually the jackass protestors who try to intimidate the police and end up getting what they deserve.


It's been quite well known for a long time that police often put their own undercovers in the mass of demonstrators in order to instigate such bravado. I wouldn't assume innocence on the parts of either the protesting Muslims or the police. In all likelihood there was equal guilt on both sides. Of course, protestors are almost automatically intimidated by fully geared up riot squads.

DeathByForce - 2-8-2006 at 01:58 AM

Quote:
It's been quite well known for a long time that police often put their own undercovers in the mass of demonstrators in order to instigate such bravado. I wouldn't assume innocence on the parts of either the protesting Muslims or the police. In all likelihood there was equal guilt on both sides. Of course, protestors are almost automatically intimidated by fully geared up riot squads.


Things must be different up here then. Because I've been to quite a few protests, I was even arrested at one. What sparked the violence at most of the protests I went to was overzealous protestors just looking for a reason to start something.

This whole muslim thing is puzzling to me. I don't understand why it's getting such press. Stuff like this were to happen in Canada or hell, to a larger extent.. the clashes in Ireland, it makes backpage news.

One little comic and the entire world goes insane. People take themselves TOO serious.

serenity - 2-8-2006 at 01:02 PM

Quote:
you've got to understand that this cartoon isn't just offensive to so-called "extremists" or "fundamentalists" but to ALL 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, be they heavily religious or mainly secular.


yes, i know. its sad that such nonsense can lead to widespread violence across the globe.

Quote:

It's not even a matter of it being a drawing of Muhammad that is the problem, the problem is that he was depicted as having a bomb in his turban perpetuating the notion that Islam is a violent religion. Granted the foolish rioters aren't helping any, but an obvious provocation like this cartoon should have been reconsidered by the editors of the newspaper.


im not much for religion at all, im agnostic at most, but i believe i had a discussion with someone here on the topic that religion overall is violent, not just islam. we all know bush speaks about god in his speeches, just like fundamentalist terrorists. no religion is more violent then any other.


Quote:

Everyone knows that the Muslim nations carry with them a long memory, and an age-old tradition of holding grudges forever. They're still stinging from the Crusades and with Muslim nations currently occupied by non-Muslim foreign forces and Muslims all over the world feeling constantly under attack such a caricature is without a doubt like lighting the fuse on a bomb, it's like throwing a match in a powder keg.


now, this is something i can agree with you on. i believe that the us-lead coalition should have invaded iraq. i can understand the afghanistan-invasion, but nonetheless, the armed forces should pull out as fast as possible.

what i dont agree with you on, is that jyllands-posten never could have foreseen this. its impossible to predict that some stupid caricatures would piss off 1.2billion people.

DaveMoral - 2-8-2006 at 05:58 PM

Serenity, the thing about Jyllands-posten is that they rejected caricatures of Jesus prior to the Muhammad carcicature on grounds of it possibly being offensive to Christians... it's a double standard on their part to reject a caricature of one religion's god and another's central figure... to us Muhammad's life is the living Qur'an, to mock him is just as offensive as to mock the Qur'an. In India there was massive riots against Hindus when Hindu extremists burned piles of the Qur'an in the street, I'm surprised that didn't spark a worldwide reaction. The newspaper's editors may not have been able to predict the reactions currently going on, but they had to know that this cartoon would most defintely offend Muslims worldwide especially the one's that would have seen the cartoon because they live in Denmark.

I tend to agree that religion on the whole is violent. The spirituality taught by respective founders or central figures of religions isn't violent, but the institution built around the teaching by followers generations down the line is without a doubt almost universally violent. Buddhism possibly being the only exception, except in certain situations which are generally not instigated by the monastic orders.

DeathbyForce, I think the reason this is getting so much press is because Muslims seem to be so much more volatile than the Irish or Canadians and because this thing, if it were to escalate anymore(and God knows the European papers and magazines republishing and adding cartoons are only adding to the fire) it could have worldwide consequences and endanger millions of lives... the IRA and Protestant groups in Northern Ireland don't generally pose a potential threat to the entire world.

serenity - 2-8-2006 at 07:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveMoral
Serenity, the thing about Jyllands-posten is that they rejected caricatures of Jesus prior to the Muhammad carcicature on grounds of it possibly being offensive to Christians... it's a double standard on their part to reject a caricature of one religion's god and another's central figure... to us Muhammad's life is the living Qur'an, to mock him is just as offensive as to mock the Qur'an. In India there was massive riots against Hindus when Hindu extremists burned piles of the Qur'an in the street, I'm surprised that didn't spark a worldwide reaction. The newspaper's editors may not have been able to predict the reactions currently going on, but they had to know that this cartoon would most defintely offend Muslims worldwide especially the one's that would have seen the cartoon because they live in Denmark.


yes, terrible. the thing is, as JP probably figured that since its a regional newspaper, it wouldnt be read by 1.2 billion people, and could therefor publish it. vast majority of the danish people is christian, so they lose alot more by badmouthing christian symbols, then they do by ridiculing muhammed.

besides, its fucking crazy to think that the world should bow down to the muslim way of life. its offensive, big deal. move the fuck on.

XHonusWagnerX - 2-8-2006 at 07:31 PM

I wanna see the cartoon

serenity - 2-8-2006 at 07:54 PM


DaveMoral - 2-8-2006 at 08:33 PM

I'm not in the least offended by the "stop we ran out of virgins" one... it's kind of funny, and not because it is poking fun at my religion... but because it's poking fun at the extremists who are fucking it up.

The bomb-turban one though has literally no discernable point, and it's not even technically a good satirical cartoon, and it blatantly offensive to Muslims.

DaveMoral - 2-9-2006 at 11:10 PM

HAHAHA nice RAID quote.

Voodoobillyman - 2-10-2006 at 04:36 PM

That one with the suicide bombers in heaven is awesome man!!!!!! That is some funny shit for sure. my biggest problem with the Muslims, is the way they treat women. I actually saw some "peaceful" muslim close hand hit his female companion in the face for getting too close to his conversation with another "peaceful" muslim in Dubai. FUCKED UP

DaveMoral - 2-10-2006 at 08:03 PM

That's got literally nothing to do with Islam, Muhammad said "do not hit the handmaidens of God" and "the best of you is he who is best to his wife." The way Arabs, Persians, Afghans and Pakis treat their women is due entirely to their tribal patriarchy. It fucking sucks for sure.

I was thinking about this today though, it's silly that Westerners are trippin' about Muslim's rioting over an insult to their religion and yet Americans will riot when THEIR sports team wins a championship(I'm lookin' at Boston here). Riots over sports are way more retarded than riots over insults to religious sensibilities in my opinion.

serenity - 2-10-2006 at 09:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveMoral
I was thinking about this today though, it's silly that Westerners are trippin' about Muslim's rioting over an insult to their religion and yet Americans will riot when THEIR sports team wins a championship(I'm lookin' at Boston here). Riots over sports are way more retarded than riots over insults to religious sensibilities in my opinion.


yes, but do sports fans attack other countries embassies?

seriously, whenever theres something bad said about islam, its never true. its all this and that and blah blah blah. besides, wasnt muhammed nothing more then a dirty pedophile, marrying a nine-year old girl called aisha?

Discipline - 2-10-2006 at 10:04 PM

Rioting over something like religious beliefs is just as stupid as rioting over a sports game. I see no difference in the level of retardation.

DaveMoral - 2-10-2006 at 10:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by serenity

yes, but do sports fans attack other countries embassies?

seriously, whenever theres something bad said about islam, its never true. its all this and that and blah blah blah. besides, wasnt muhammed nothing more then a dirty pedophile, marrying a nine-year old girl called aisha?


Either way, the riots are retarded.

As to Muhammad... some reported traditions say Aisha was 9, but the stories don't add up. She was supposed to be something like 5 years younger than Muhammad's daughter Fatima, who was 17 when Muhammad is said to have married Aisha. Secondly, the notion that Muhammad was some sort of sexual deviant doesn't really add up given that his first wife, with whom he was completely monogamous, was 15 years older than him and he didn't marry her until he was 25... which was extremely unusual for that era of human history. The majority of his later wives were divorced older women. Aside from which, the standard Muslim belief is that a person reaches the state of "baligh"(maturity, adulthood) at around the age of 15... so even in that era 9 would have been quite the stretch for betrothal, let alone marriage. It's certainly a worthy story to be criticized, but it's also important to analyze it with other sources which it may contradict or not gel with... Muslims are currently actively engaging in such analysis. If you're actually interested, check this out Aisha.

Though, interestingly, if one does the math on say.... Mary, the mother of Jesus, in all likelihood her age at the time of the immaculate conception was 12. At this time we know she was betrothed/engaged to Joseph. The Catholic Church teaches this. By today's standards Joseph would be a "pedophile" or at least considered sexually deviant for marrying a 12 year old girl(even if he didn't ever consumate the marriage with her, as the Catholic Church teaches). It wasn't that long ago that people in the US were getting married at 13 and 14, ages considered far too young by today's standards.

It's kind of hypocritical to analyze what may have been acceptable 1400 years ago by the standards of today's society, especially when not even 100 years ago 14 year olds were being married off.

serenity - 2-11-2006 at 09:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveMoral
Quote:
Originally posted by serenity

yes, but do sports fans attack other countries embassies?

seriously, whenever theres something bad said about islam, its never true. its all this and that and blah blah blah. besides, wasnt muhammed nothing more then a dirty pedophile, marrying a nine-year old girl called aisha?


Either way, the riots are retarded.

As to Muhammad... some reported traditions say Aisha was 9, but the stories don't add up. She was supposed to be something like 5 years younger than Muhammad's daughter Fatima, who was 17 when Muhammad is said to have married Aisha. Secondly, the notion that Muhammad was some sort of sexual deviant doesn't really add up given that his first wife, with whom he was completely monogamous, was 15 years older than him and he didn't marry her until he was 25... which was extremely unusual for that era of human history. The majority of his later wives were divorced older women. Aside from which, the standard Muslim belief is that a person reaches the state of "baligh"(maturity, adulthood) at around the age of 15... so even in that era 9 would have been quite the stretch for betrothal, let alone marriage. It's certainly a worthy story to be criticized, but it's also important to analyze it with other sources which it may contradict or not gel with... Muslims are currently actively engaging in such analysis. If you're actually interested, check this out Aisha.

Though, interestingly, if one does the math on say.... Mary, the mother of Jesus, in all likelihood her age at the time of the immaculate conception was 12. At this time we know she was betrothed/engaged to Joseph. The Catholic Church teaches this. By today's standards Joseph would be a "pedophile" or at least considered sexually deviant for marrying a 12 year old girl(even if he didn't ever consumate the marriage with her, as the Catholic Church teaches). It wasn't that long ago that people in the US were getting married at 13 and 14, ages considered far too young by today's standards.

It's kind of hypocritical to analyze what may have been acceptable 1400 years ago by the standards of today's society, especially when not even 100 years ago 14 year olds were being married off.


wikipedia is not a reliable source, and does it actually matter if muslims are investigating if she really was nine? i mean, what do you think theyll tell the people?

well, im not catholic or anything, and them being against abortions, i will never ever be catholic. i have never heard of this though, ever. then again, i couldnt really care any less, seeing religion is nothing more than excuses to go to war for.

DaveMoral - 2-11-2006 at 11:30 AM

The Wikipedia article in question is reliable, it's just the quickest, most consice, thing I could find. Thus, making sense to post it. The reality is that the hadith, or sayings, of Muhammad aren't always 100% accurate and there's an indepth science that goes into how those are verified and whether or not the narrators can be trusted... including how good their memories may have been at the time certain statements were narrated. Historical records differ from what those hadith say, the one's saying Aisha was 9 were said by a man whose memory was weak by the time he made those narrations. My piont is, when compilers of books of sayings were more concerned with the teaching of the laws of what was permissible and not or how to worship etc they focus less on sayings or stories about history and are likely to have flawed historical data in their books. The historians, on the other hand, are meticulously concerned with historical data and would do their utmost make sure they had correct data in light of all sources. Hence why the biographer of Muhammad has information that indicates Aisha was at least 14 when she was married.

My point being, you just resorted to the kind of argument that Christian zealots use against Islam, and so I presented relevant information to Aisha's case... as well as information that the Virgin Mary was around 12 to 16. It's not just Catholic teaching, it was Jewish tradition at the time. If you don't care about religion, then why bother resorting to making a statement like "wasn't Muhammad a dirty pedophile" and then when you're given relevant information that challenges that notion you reject it. That's just retarded. Call something in my religion out, and I'm going to challenge it.

I just think it is erroneous to attribute everything to Islam that Muslims do. Is it justifiable to riot and burn down the property of the Danish government over this cartoon? No, and even the Muslim "clerics" from Denmark that are tacitly responsible for this whole mess say that. It would be just as erroneous to attribute to Christianity, more specifically the teachings of Christ, the actions of many Christians. Pat Robertson isn't anymore representative of Christianity on the whole than Osama Bin Laden is Islam.

Voodoobillyman - 2-11-2006 at 09:23 PM

Pat Robertson............and Osama Bin Fucko. Good comparison, I hate Robertson and everything he stands for as a "Christian" but at least he dosent convince people to blow themselves up in the name of his Jihad. I cannot wait until we take that fucker out, I hope it's some CIA operative that does it too, so he can say we made him, and we broke him. For the record, I have nothing against Muslims, as long as they don't buy into this whole Jihad thing being sold to the angry disenfranchised youth of the middle east. if ya do, ya gotta go.

DaveMoral - 2-11-2006 at 10:39 PM

Yeah, well, there's legitimate jihad(for defense only, no taking of civilian and other non-combatant life, etc), and then there's what al-Qa'ida and other terrorists are doing... that shit's just fucked up.

As for Robertson, yeah, he's not convincing people to suicide bomb... but he's suggesting the assassinations of elected foreign officials, telling entire cities not to turn to God because they rejected intelligent design in their schools, and suggests that he knows God's mind by saying that Sharon is suffering illness because he's pulled out of Gaza... the guy is just as much a terrorist(in my opinion) as Bin Laden... then again, so is the Bush administration, they fear-monger more than al-Qa'ida.

I'm just pissed off at the world in general anymore. Fuck Bush, fuck Robertson, fuck Israel, fuck the majority of Muslims and everyone else.

Killthehumans - 2-13-2006 at 11:27 PM

im half arab, but not a muslim, in fact im no religion. Its dumb that they are rioting over a cartoon. Fuck that, freedom of speech. BUt at the same time the cartoonist was dumb. With all the tensions built up, it wasnt that smart. As for jihad, fuck that too. All religous uprisings are dumb. However things like anti-fata, and people rioting for thier rights im all for. Point is religous fanatics suck, warmongers suck,pat robertson blows, bush blows, osama blows, haliburton blows, being respectful, kind and MINDFUL towards others culture,rights, is good.



ok im done with my not really having to to with the topic but im really bored post

gavin - 2-14-2006 at 01:48 AM

all religions make me wanna throw up
all religions make me sick
-jello biafra but i wish i said it first

JawnDiablo - 2-14-2006 at 08:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBadVibes
all religions make me wanna throw up
all religions make me sick
-jello biafra but i wish i said it first


water u doin in the hate forum?

upyerbum - 2-14-2006 at 09:00 AM

None of this happened. All lies. There was no Jesus there was no Mohammed.
The truth is far more encouraging.

Mute98 - 2-18-2006 at 01:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveMoral
I'm not in the least offended by the "stop we ran out of virgins" one... it's kind of funny, and not because it is poking fun at my religion... but because it's poking fun at the extremists who are fucking it up.

The bomb-turban one though has literally no discernable point, and it's not even technically a good satirical cartoon, and it blatantly offensive to Muslims.


im muslim and i find it hilarious

not really religious though

GabeTexasGAMC - 2-27-2006 at 12:17 PM

Any religion taken seriously is rediculous.
If you live your life with morals and a concious, then why do you need religion.
Who cares, im wrong anyways, and i cant spell for shit.
The only thing i look forward to on sundays is BBQ and Beer.
My life rules, and people who bitch too much are missing out.

DaveMoral - 2-27-2006 at 07:20 PM

Haha. Word Gabe. I'm feeling you on that.

I guess it's kind of like the whole straight edge thing, or a crew thing, like-minded people banding together under a set of beliefs... in the case of religion that's God and how to worship Him.