Muslims "warn" South Park Creators

[quote name='Strell']Score another point for the religion of peace.[/QUOTE]

Uhh...what was violent, dangerous, or Islamic-terrorist related in the cartoonist changing her campaign from drawing Mohammed to drawing Al Gore?

She elected to call it off it would appear.

Oh well. Subtract another point for a failed one-liner by Strell. (PS, I actually love you :twoguns:whoops, wrong smiley, I meant :razz:, and I really do love you)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because networks, companies, and businesses the world wide are bending over for a religion that is making constant threats because they can't grow up. Netflix removes an episode of South Park from their registry. I'm willing to bet we'll find more stealth removals as time goes on - Comedy Central might cut that episode entirely from South Park season sets.

It's good to know you are okay with that - violent backlash against a fucking drawing.

So, once again. Sure is religion of peace. And remember, that's YOUR tagline. Just like how calling out Fox News being "fair and balanced" is because they put that in the fore front.

I'm sorry you are completely incapable of detecting any sort of reasonable denigration because of your faith, and can't wait to see how you'll whine around in response that I'm not being respectful to a group of people who just might attack someone for pencil scratches. I'll have a go at anyone or anything that necessitates it based on ridiculous, outdated, dumbass ideology, from politics to religion to fast food.
 
Well I think it's unfair to sarcastically call the religion 'religion of peace.' It certainly isn't the view of most Muslims.

In fact, from what Richard Clarke said, the threat came from a group of people that just polices a series of tubes looking for 'offending' things so they can use that perceived 'insult' to justify violence.

Nutjobs. Fringe group.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Well I think it's unfair to sarcastically call the religion 'religion of peace.' It certainly isn't the view of most Muslims.

In fact, from what Richard Clarke said, the threat came from a group of people that just polices a series of tubes looking for 'offending' things so they can use that perceived 'insult' to justify violence.

Nutjobs. Fringe group.[/QUOTE]

No, no, no, don't give him that, it's easier to blame the whole religion apparently. To be totally honest, for me personally, if someone wants to draw a pic or make a cartoon, or do whatever with an image of Muhammed, so be it. I would probably find it offensive, but he doesn't need to accept cultural norms for a culture that isn't his.

Hell, he can hate the whole religion, again, doesn't impact my life at all.

Personally, I think it's strange that such a small number of whackos can somehow be the international face of a group, based on media and people's desires. It's not like all the muslims got together in Mecca on September 16th and elected Osama to HMIC (Head Muslim In Charge)

It's also weird that many of the people that go on and on about how evil the religion is, aren't directly impacted by it at all. And by directly impacted, I don't mean, that nasty corporate whore, Comedy Central, bleeped out part of cartoon you like to watch, I mean personally...what have muslims specifically done to you?

Edit: Oh, and to clarify :It's good to know you are okay with that - violent backlash against a fucking drawing.

---When did I ever say violence was justified in that whole situation?---



I like HD-DVDs.
 
[quote name='Strell']Because networks, companies, and businesses the world wide are bending over for a religion that is making constant threats because they can't grow up. Netflix removes an episode of South Park from their registry. I'm willing to bet we'll find more stealth removals as time goes on - Comedy Central might cut that episode entirely from South Park season sets.

It's good to know you are okay with that - violent backlash against a fucking drawing.

So, once again. Sure is religion of peace. And remember, that's YOUR tagline. Just like how calling out Fox News being "fair and balanced" is because they put that in the fore front.

I'm sorry you are completely incapable of detecting any sort of reasonable denigration because of your faith, and can't wait to see how you'll whine around in response that I'm not being respectful to a group of people who just might attack someone for pencil scratches. I'll have a go at anyone or anything that necessitates it based on ridiculous, outdated, dumbass ideology, from politics to religion to fast food.[/QUOTE]

Fast Food? Don't even go there, my man. Thats a slippery ass slope.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']Fast Food? Don't even go there, my man. Thats a slippery ass slope.[/QUOTE]

I didn't even go after Taco Bell yet. That's preemptive profiling. You're preemptive profiling.
 
This is Muhammad, prophet of Islam:

penis.jpg
 
Anyone else see the people 'reporting' that the car bomb in NYC was parked pretty close to some offices for Viacom(aka parent company of Comedy Central)?

Funny thing is, the 'bomber' bought the fireworks he tried using to set off his 'bomb' in my home state of PA about 30-40 miles from here(Milford).
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Anyone else see the people 'reporting' that the car bomb in NYC was parked pretty close to some offices for Viacom(aka parent company of Comedy Central)?

Funny thing is, the 'bomber' bought the fireworks he tried using to set off his 'bomb' in my home state of PA about 30-40 miles from here(Milford).[/QUOTE]

Yep, but nobody here mentioned it.

Let's pretend for a moment the bomber had been successful.

Then what? No more South Park? Probably not.

Bombing Pakistan into oblivion? Probably so.
 
[quote name='berzirk']what have muslims specifically done to you?[/QUOTE]

They crashed planes into buildings in my country killing 3,000 civilians. They murdered a Danish cartoonist for not following religious rules.

I know, I know...
"Whoever kills a person …it is as though he has killed all mankind." (Q 5:32)

However, not even the prophet followed his rules of "Peace":
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/abuafak.html
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/asma.html

In fact, he seemed to wage quite a bit of his own "Holy War":
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/islamtime.html

An analysis of Surah 5:32:
http://www.islam-watch.org/Peace4ever/LostCount.htm

Say what you will about Christianity and the crusades. Whatever perversions and corruptions of Christ's message his followers have created, his religion started with an actual message of peace and sacrifice. At least Jesus himself doesn't have blood on his hands.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']In the same way that a mob boss doesn't have blood on his hands because someone else does all the killing?[/QUOTE]
Jesus never asked anyone to kill for him. In fact, he asked us to "turn the other cheek", to forgive or to "give our cloak also".

Muhammad led an army and supervised the brutal murder of 600 POWs. He asked his followers to murder dissidents on more than one occasion.

Which one is the mob boss? Jesus spoke of peace, accepting any who would listen, and we corrupted the message. Muhammad spoke of peace, and practiced the murder of non-believers.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Jesus never asked anyone to kill for him. In fact, he asked us to "turn the other cheek", to forgive or to "give our cloak also".

Muhammad led an army and supervised the brutal murder of 600 POWs. He asked his followers to murder dissidents on more than one occasion.

Which one is the mob boss? Jesus spoke of peace, accepting any who would listen, and we corrupted the message. Muhammad spoke of peace, and practiced the murder of non-believers.[/QUOTE]

Yawn. First and foremost, the terrorists of 9/11 didn't personally attack you. And unless you're a Danish cartoonist, I don't think you were attacked either. So technically, muslims still haven't done anything to you personally.

I encourage you to read Islamic history if you care to start citing instances of war. I've read a limited amount, and there are certainly some occassions where I don't understand the motive, but many, many others were clearly self-defense, or retaliation for another attack.

Anyhoo, you asked for violent quotes attributed to Jesus and the New Testament, so with the power of Google:

Revelations 2:16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth

Revelations 2:22-23 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23I will strike her children dead.

Revelations 7:4 (only 144,000 Jews will go to heaven...everyone else...) Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

Revelations 19: 14-15 1The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Matthew 10:34-39 (encouraging martyrdom, and dividing family members) 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - 36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Since this could get long winded fast, I'm always open to further discussion over email or PM to save the board what will now likely be a lenghty exchange of passages.
 
[quote name='Quillion']They crashed planes into buildings in my country killing 3,000 civilians. They murdered a Danish cartoonist for not following religious rules.

I know, I know...
"Whoever kills a person …it is as though he has killed all mankind." (Q 5:32)

However, not even the prophet followed his rules of "Peace":
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/abuafak.html
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/asma.html

In fact, he seemed to wage quite a bit of his own "Holy War":
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/islamtime.html

An analysis of Surah 5:32:
http://www.islam-watch.org/Peace4ever/LostCount.htm

Say what you will about Christianity and the crusades. Whatever perversions and corruptions of Christ's message his followers have created, his religion started with an actual message of peace and sacrifice. At least Jesus himself doesn't have blood on his hands.[/QUOTE]

and honestly, if we're just going to exchange links, here ya go:

http://www.evilbible.com/what_would_jesus_do.htm
 
[quote name='berzirk']Yawn. First and foremost, the terrorists of 9/11 didn't personally attack you. And unless you're a Danish cartoonist, I don't think you were attacked either. So technically, muslims still haven't done anything to you personally.[/QUOTE]
They're attacks against my country, and at the underpinnings of my democracy. The right to speech and expression. Those are attacks on me.

But I don't want to sit here and exchange passages all day. I didn't ask for Bible passages of the New Testament condoning violence, I asked if Jesus ever condoned violence. Even when Judas betrayed him to the Romans for execution, he forgave. Regarding your passages, only one was spoken by Jesus outside of parable. The Matthew 10 passage. I disagree with your interpretation. You say "Martyrdom and violence against family", I say "Sacrifice everything worldly to enter the kingdom of heaven". Whatever.

My point was that parts of the Quran indeed preach peace. But it's peace for Muslims and only Muslims. Muhammad never practiced peace. He was a war leader - a vengeful one. To claim that the radical Muslims are not representative of the religion when the founder of the religion was drenched in the blood of those who disagreed is somewhat disingenuous. They're just following the Prophet's example. (Peace be upon him - because he was Muslim)

I say this mostly as someone who looked to convert to Islam, and was disillusioned by the violence inherent in it's history. It's the same thing that drove me to reject Christianity. The only difference is that I can accept the "Religion of Peace" moniker for Christianity because the founder wasn't drenched in any blood other than his own.

In summary: The perversions of Christianity to authorize violence are diametrically opposed its founder's teaching and actions. The "perversions" of Islam to authorize violence are simply following its founder's example.
 
They're attacks against my country, and at the underpinnings of my democracy. The right to speech and expression. Those are attacks on me.

----They didn't attack the right to speech and expression. Comedy Central made the decision not to air the broadcast. Newspapers made the decision to show or not show the cartoons.

But I don't want to sit here and exchange passages all day. I didn't ask for Bible passages of the New Testament condoning violence, I asked if Jesus ever condoned violence. Even when Judas betrayed him to the Romans for execution, he forgave. Regarding your passages, only one was spoken by Jesus outside of parable. The Matthew 10 passage. I disagree with your interpretation. You say "Martyrdom and violence against family", I say "Sacrifice everything worldly to enter the kingdom of heaven". Whatever.

---Ahh, interpretation, much like another could interpret Quranic verses to mean something very different. Now we're getting somewhere. We all have the ability to read and analyze something, and craft our own opinions. By the way, some of those passages (as I understand it) were quotes from Jesus.

My point was that parts of the Quran indeed preach peace. But it's peace for Muslims and only Muslims.

---Completely incorrect. Muslims are allowed to marry Jews or Christians, prohibited from destroying churches and synogogues, by the religion, prohibited from killing civilians, etc. Now how a group of criminals elect to carry that out is on them, but the religion does not preach peace to muslims only. That's an outright lie.

Muhammad never practiced peace.

---again, a lie. For years he lived in Mecca under religious persecution, famously beaten nearly to death, had animal intestines thrown on him while he prayed. He never attacked until after he had moved out of Mecca and offered numerous truces.

He was a war leader - a vengeful one. To claim that the radical Muslims are not representative of the religion when the founder of the religion was drenched in the blood of those who disagreed is somewhat disingenuous. They're just following the Prophet's example. (Peace be upon him - because he was Muslim)

---hunh? Of course he was a war leader. He led his men into battle several times. Many would say he was one of the better war strategists of all time. As were many of America's generals and presidents. (and in your tongue-in-cheek "Peace be upon him" line, you neglected to include that many obersvant muslims actually say peace be upon him after speaking the name of all of the prophets, including Jesus, Moses, Noah, Abraham, and Adam, alayhim-salaam)

I say this mostly as someone who looked to convert to Islam,and was disillusioned by the violence inherent in it's history. It's the same thing that drove me to reject Christianity. The only difference is that I can accept the "Religion of Peace" moniker for Christianity because the founder wasn't drenched in any blood other than his own.

---and I actually had exactly the opposite experience. Came from a Christian background, felt that many of the fundamentals just didn't make any sense, researched lots other religions, and found that Islam answered far more questions for me than anything else.

In summary: The perversions of Christianity to authorize violence are diametrically opposed its founder's teaching and actions. The "perversions" of Islam to authorize violence are simply following its founder's example.

---again, an outright lie. You are quick to declare bad so-called muslims as representatives of the entire faith, but then just as quick to exclude bad christians from being representative of that faith. You can't have it both ways. Either that muslim terrorist is a criminal who happens to be muslim, and that christian terrorist (abortion killer, N.Ireland killers, Crusaders, Missionary Expansionists) is a criminal who happens to be christian, or they are looked at as walking examples of their faith. Me personally, I choose option 1.
 
[quote name='berzirk']For years he lived in Mecca under religious persecution, famously beaten nearly to death, had animal intestines thrown on him while he prayed. He never attacked until after he had moved out of Mecca and offered numerous truces.[/QUOTE]

Was that before he started silencing critics by having them murdered?

The murder of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/kab.html

The murder of Abu `Afak:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/abuafak.html

The murder of `Asma' Bint Marwan:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/asma.html

(I posted two of these links above in an earlier post. They're rather good, with references and text from the Muslim historian Ibn Ishaq who initially wrote them.)

My point was that parts of the Quran indeed preach peace. But it's peace for Muslims and only Muslims.

---Completely incorrect. Muslims are allowed to marry Jews or Christians, prohibited from destroying churches and synogogues, by the religion, prohibited from killing civilians, etc. Now how a group of criminals elect to carry that out is on them, but the religion does not preach peace to muslims only. That's an outright lie.
Click to expand...
After the Siege of Medina, he gave a large number (accounts vary from 400-600-900) of Jews the choice of converting to Islam or being beheaded.
(Sorry, this link is Wikipedia)
Accounts state it was all men of Medina, not just combatants. While the women and children were enslaved.

You should be able to see how the "group of criminals" might see these historical accounts and determine that it's OK to kill "infidels" including civilians. If it's good enough for the prophet, it's good enough for his followers.

It's possible that all of the above accounts are false - spread by enemies of Islam. It's possible that the only accurate account of Muhammad's teachings is the Quran and not the hadiths. There is plenty of evidence; however, of the cruelties of Islam today, the (in my opinion) crimes committed in its name.
 
Oh I don't doubt for a second that people who were plotting an assasination of Muhammad were pre-emptively put to death. I would support that 100%. In that 2nd link, it starts off by talking about this 120 year old man. Seriously...in 600AD...there's some Jew hanging out in Medina who is 120? Living to 60 was amazing in that era.

Anyway, I could spend time personally researching each of those incidents with multiple sources, but to be honest, it's not a raging issue for me.

The people of Medina offered Muhammad and his followers refuge there. Then the city elders signed a pact with them for mutual support against raiders and such. As Muhammad's group grew stronger, some of the elders, who yes, happened to be Jews, weren't so fond of their "legal immigrants" starting to be more powerful than them, so they broke the truce by trying to arrange for an external group to come in and kill Muhammad. That's the account I recall, assuming it's the same instance you're talking about.

So yes, any violence, retaliation, or anything else was after Muhammad left Mecca.

And your last point that crimes are being committed in Islam's name is something that I'm very strongly in agreement with. I'm not sure why that was included in your response, I have a feeling 99% of muslims feel that way, and are saddened, disgusted, and insulted by that reality. My point is that if a criminal wants to refer to Biblical scripture and Christian actions, they can just as easily do that if they are looking for a perverted way to justify their actions. Muslims don't have the market cornered on idiots committing crimes.
 
[quote name='berzirk']The people of Medina offered Muhammad and his followers refuge there. Then the city elders signed a pact with them for mutual support against raiders and such. As Muhammad's group grew stronger, some of the elders, who yes, happened to be Jews, weren't so fond of their "legal immigrants" starting to be more powerful than them, so they broke the truce by trying to arrange for an external group to come in and kill Muhammad. That's the account I recall, assuming it's the same instance you're talking about. [/QUOTE]
Nope, not plotters. These were just people who wrote poetry critical of Muhammad and Islam. There's a whole list of poets and critics Muhammad murdered while consolidating power for his eventual invasion of Mecca.

To reiterate, the accounts are written by a Muslim scholar. Not only was a Muslim scholar not ashamed that his religion's founder murdered critics, he published it, presenting it as completely acceptable behavior.

In conclusion, based on historical accounts of the prophet himself murdering multiple critics of his teachings, and Muslim scholars acceptance of this as appropriate behavior; it's possible to draw a straight line from the prophet to the Muslims of today using violence to silence critics of their religion.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Nope, not plotters. These were just people who wrote poetry critical of Muhammad and Islam. There's a whole list of poets and critics Muhammad murdered while consolidating power for his eventual invasion of Mecca.

To reiterate, the accounts are written by a Muslim scholar. Not only was a Muslim scholar not ashamed that his religion's founder murdered critics, he published it, presenting it as completely acceptable behavior.

In conclusion, based on historical accounts of the prophet himself murdering multiple critics of his teachings, and Muslim scholars acceptance of this as appropriate behavior; it's possible to draw a straight line from the prophet to the Muslims of today using violence to silence critics of their religion.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, I don't know enough about those three particular events, haven't researched it (now truthfully, I rather doubt you have too, rather you found a link by someone else who translated it and offered their opinion, but that's not terribly relevant).

But if your position is that all observant muslims should be so well aware of these events (many of "us" haven't heard of them) and as a result commit permissable murder, then wouldn't the fact that such an amazing minority of the muslim population...actually commits a violent act, show that there is a major problem with jumping to the conclusion you have?

I was literally on a panel at a local college two days ago and this woman offered an email she received where the writer was saying it's a requirement for muslims to kill all non-muslims. Another muslim I was with replied dead-panned, "You're still alive aren't you? If that were true, you don't think the 1.X billion muslims in the world would've killed all non-muslims throughout history?"
 
[quote name='berzirk']But if your position is that all observant muslims should be so well aware of these events (many of "us" haven't heard of them) and as a result commit permissable murder, then wouldn't the fact that such an amazing minority of the muslim population...actually commits a violent act, show that there is a major problem with jumping to the conclusion you have? [/QUOTE]Doesn't it stand to reason that the most devout (or fanatical) would be the most likely to know these stories? The ones looking to justify violence against their fellow man?

I'm not saying all Muslims are violent. I'm saying the prophet was. People would find reasons to kill in the name of religion no matter how non-violent the religion was. Look at Christianity. "Christians" have used tenuous (at best) reasons to justify the vilest of acts. (Though, I've never heard of Buddhist extremists...)

The difference is that Islam has the reasons baked right in. The prophet murdered critics and put people to death who refused to convert to Islam. It doesn't matter what end it served, what insults or injustices he suffered, political assassination is never OK, neither is beheading captives.
 
The majority of Muslims aren't violent people. They just practice their religion and they don't affect us. I'm cool with that.
The majority of Christians aren't violent people. They just practice their religion and they don't affect us. I'm cool with that.

Hey this is cool! Who wants to try next?
The majority of ________ aren't violent people. They just practice their religion and they don't affect us. I'm cool with that.
 
[quote name='IRHari']The majority of Muslims aren't violent people. They just practice their religion and they don't affect us. I'm cool with that.
The majority of Christians aren't violent people. They just practice their religion and they don't affect us. I'm cool with that.

Hey this is cool! Who wants to try next?
The majority of serial killers aren't violent people. They just practice their religion and they don't affect us. I'm cool with that.[/QUOTE]

Ahh damn! Haa haa.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Doesn't it stand to reason that the most devout (or fanatical) would be the most likely to know these stories? The ones looking to justify violence against their fellow man?

I'm not saying all Muslims are violent. I'm saying the prophet was. People would find reasons to kill in the name of religion no matter how non-violent the religion was. Look at Christianity. "Christians" have used tenuous (at best) reasons to justify the vilest of acts. (Though, I've never heard of Buddhist extremists...)

The difference is that Islam has the reasons baked right in. The prophet murdered critics and put people to death who refused to convert to Islam. It doesn't matter what end it served, what insults or injustices he suffered, political assassination is never OK, neither is beheading captives.[/QUOTE]

It's rather clear we agree to disagree, I'm just saying that if you want to look at the beginning of Judaism, and the beginning of Christianity (never really got into Hinduism, Buddhism/Confucionism, Bahaii, etc) many of them had their battles, their wars, and oftentimes it was because the "new religion" was being oppressed. This is the same with Islam, as the early Muslims were persecuted. The only real difference is that this religion's prophet was alive when the faith was on the upswing and in a position to fight back against the oppressors, therefore he was involved in many of the battles.

Edit: Oh, by the way, I found a nice resource for a listing of many of the early days of Islam which detail some of these battles, the oppression, etc. http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/index.htm
 
[quote name='An J0e']May 20- Tomorrow- draw Muhammad day. anybody?[/QUOTE]

I have a stellar idea for a drawing, but my pencil capabilities are making me hesitate.
 
after the south park thing a few people decided to do "draw Muhammad day". The goal is to flood the internet with various drawing of Muhammad (a "they can't get us all" kind of effort). the groups at 4chan seemed to have taken a particular liking to it, and a few groups are trying to turn Muhammad into a full fledged meme.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']I have a stellar idea for a drawing, but my pencil capabilities are making me hesitate.[/QUOTE]

i wouldn't know where to post it, but i have moderate skills and a touch screen laptop (ENGR required :D). If its really good i might give it a go (i have my own idea that i/ friend thinks is pretty funny). Overall it doesn't really matter if it is well draw, most of them will be MS paint monstrosities that have "Muhammad" written on them; so, no pressure.
 
Yeah I heard about that shit. Crazy.

I listened to an NPR story about Pakistani schools. There is a conservative group of Muslim students that beat the shit out of dudes who talk or get close to girls in public (and vice-versa.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top