| Pages:
1
2 |
random
Posting Freak
Posts: 2293
Registered: 7-30-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Not his greatest performance, but I agree with Jon Stewart's take on this.
|
|
|
Murk
Posting Freak
Posts: 1243
Registered: 5-15-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DaveMoral
As it is, it was just an obscure website that said something construed(rightly or wrongly) as a thinly veiled threat... |
the website posted the address of La Casa Bonita, the studio where South Park does their work.
|
|
|
DaveMoral
Posting Freak
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-24-2006
Location: Ardmore PA
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by random
| Quote: | Originally posted by DaveMoral
At least not as regards Muhammad, most that seems rather harmless versus the Jesus watching porn thing and Buddha snorting coke. Both of which I find
rather more offensive |
I think that's part of their point. It's offensive, but nobody is making murder threats - implicit or explicit - based on South Park depicting Buddha
as a raging coke addict or Jesus as a raging internet porn addict. They are, however, receiving those threats based on a storyline which centers on
the fact that violence is (at least) threatened by some Muslims (a very small number of Muslims, at that) in response to the potential depiction of
Muhammad. |
The whole notion of these guys getting worked up specifically about Muhammad being a bear suit or in an ice cream truck and never seen, but not about
Jesus watching internet porn is outrageous to me. The Qur'an says that Muslims are supposed to believe in all the prophets of the Bible, including
Jesus, and Muhammad and that we don't make any difference between them. If you're going to get worked up enough to suggest a guy or guys should or
could be killed because of something offensive towards one of the Prophets I think it should be the Jesus and porn thing rather than the thing with
Muhammad.
Which just goes to show, in a weird sort of way, the corrupt nature of these guys' take on Islam. They single out the less offensive material
regarding Muhammad as that which they get worked up enough to post an address and say "you could die for this and end up like that Van Gogh dude," but
they let the Jesus watching porn "joke" slide by as if it's not actually more offensive to Muslim sensibilities much less Christian sensibilities.
It's indicative of the bankruptcy of their entire "ideology" or whatever, it's one that ultimately isn't authentically Islamic, IMO. Let
alone the death threats themselves, which are ludicrous.
Muhammad didn't raise a sword, or even a hand, to those opposed to him in Mecca when he first began preaching while they maligned his Message, beat
him, threw various kinds of filth on him(entrails etc)... all of which he bore in a very Gandhian manner(of course, Gandhi himself said he found a
great deal of inspiration from Muhammad). Muhammad only took to the sword when his followers were being oppressed for their beliefs, thrown out of
their homes and their belongings seized and sold. Furthermore, there is a centuries long tradition of depicted Muhammad in Islamic art. Especially
Islamic Persian art.
What the Qur'an tells me to do when I am in the presence of those who insult and malign Islam and the Prophet is to leave that gathering. Not to beat
or kill or yell at those people, but to simply leave. So in this case, ignore the whole thing and don't watch it.
*Edit* Just to point out the further hypocrisy of alleging to defend the honor of Muhammad by threatening death on anyone that is percieved to be
slighting him: the guys are RevolutionMuslim.org, judging by the cached version of their website since it has apparently been taken down, subscribe to
the same corrupt theological and ideological strain of thought as not only the al-Qa'ida and Taliban but the Saudi Wahhabi authorities(who are not so
much violent towards Americans because they, like their rulers, need American money to maintain their own wealth and spread their insidious influence
in Muslim communties around the world). Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban are "Salafis" and they are essentially the same ideology as the Wahhabis. The
Wahhabis have long attempted to rid the Muslim community of its devotion to Muhammad specifically. They discourage the ritual blessing recited by most
Muslims throughout history upon the Prophet and his family after the 5 daily prayers. The Wahhabi religious authorities in Saudi Arabia had the
beautiful Arabic calligraphic inscription of an Egyptian Sufi's poem of praise for Muhammad destroyed off the interior walls of the Prophet's mosque
in Medina, Saudi Arabia. In the early part of the 20th century they wanted to tear down the Prophet's mosque itself and the only thing that prevented
them was that numerous people who climbed the dome of the mosque to attempt the beginning of deconstruction fell to their deaths. They've done similar
things with the tombs and graveyards containing the family of Muhammad. So these very people, who have worked so hard to "cleanse" the Muslims of the
world of their devotion to Muhammad are now claiming to "defend" Muhammad by threatening death upon Western artists for their own ignorance regarding
Muhammad. These guys, in their "defense," only further defame Muhammad. But then, when haven't they done so? Even amongst Muslims.
|
|
|
random
Posting Freak
Posts: 2293
Registered: 7-30-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Dave,
I gotta say it's nice having you around for these discussions, even though I think you often get pushed into defending - or at least explaining -
certain things more than you actually agree with them. I usually agree with a lot of things you say and, even though I strongly disagree with you on
this one, it's really cool that you present the opposing argument without resorting to... well, for lack of a simpler term, acting like a douchebag,
even when others who disagree with you are acting like that (not so much here, but definitely in lots of previous discussions/debates).
Oh, and don't worry about my new avatar pic... it's actually Santa inside the costume. 
|
|
|
DaveMoral
Posting Freak
Posts: 4334
Registered: 1-24-2006
Location: Ardmore PA
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by random
Dave,
I gotta say it's nice having you around for these discussions, even though I think you often get pushed into defending - or at least explaining -
certain things more than you actually agree with them. I usually agree with a lot of things you say and, even though I strongly disagree with you on
this one, it's really cool that you present the opposing argument without resorting to... well, for lack of a simpler term, acting like a douchebag,
even when others who disagree with you are acting like that (not so much here, but definitely in lots of previous discussions/debates).
Oh, and don't worry about my new avatar pic... it's actually Santa inside the costume.
|
I had a whole response that I wrote earlier, but the computer just shut off on me and I lost it all.
Anyways, thanks for your kind words. It's not easy being in a position to have to defend my religion while at the same time having to condemn my
so-called "brothers" since true Islam has been so distorted by these fools and the prevailing Western/Christian polemics regarding Islam and Muslims.
I struggle with falling into douchebaggery on these things though sometimes, because it's easy to give as good as you get. It's a whole hell of alot
harder to side step that whole track and come out with level headed responses.
Especially when I take my faith and that which is Sacred to me very very seriously, it's as much a part of me as my DNA. It is, in fact, much more
me than my DNA I would say. So it's hard not to take a diss at my specific religion, or religion as an umbrella term, somewhat personally.
It's very personal to me, so it's a bit hard when a person just straight up disrespects who I am not to take that personally.
I value this community, but honestly I don't necessarily want to hang around when some of you guys(not you specifically random) talk shit on religion
and religious people. Especially the whole "imaginary friend" dig really bothers me. I don't want to hang around this forum when those comments are
made, and it seems to me that it's always me having to choose my words carefully so as not to have some kind of flame war. While I don't expect anyone
on here to believe in what I believe in, nor accord themselves to my sensibilities at all, I wouldn't mind a bit more thoughtfulness in posts.
Let's face it, we'd all like to keep this place civil and we see how close shit can get to incivility when people get to going on religion. My
current motto is: have your opinion, but try not to be an asshole about it. Frankly, when dudes talk about religious people in terms like "imaginary
friend" or talk like it's "childish" to believe in a Higher Power... that's being an asshole. I personally don't feel that's good for this online
community.
That's not say I'd like to see some kind of rule set that limits the shit we can say on here, so far we've managed to never have flame wars like most
other forums on the interweb. I dunno, I'd guess I'd like a little more consciousness once in a while. If you've got respect for everyone that posts
here, why not act like it? There are less... prickish ways to express athiest views. Ones that don't provoke or insult people who believe. When you
talk about "imaginary friends" it doesn't exactly tell me that I could have much of an intellectual discussion with you(again, not you particularly
random just vocal athiests in general) on the subject. And not one to even convince you, but one with thoughtfulness instead of stupid anti-religious
reactionary bullshit. I'm not that prick Christian preacher that pissed you off when you were a kid, so don't talk to me as if I was trying to
condescend to you about what you should believe and what's going to happen to you if you don't. That's not my trip. The only way to legitimately agree
to disagree is to have mutual respect for each others' opinions, belief and/or lack of belief.
Peace.
|
|
|
Murk
Posting Freak
Posts: 1243
Registered: 5-15-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/thorp/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
