The only relevant one would be Jesus himself, as he is the one they seek to emulate. Muslims seek to emulate Mohammed. If Mohammed was a bit of a monster, then that is a problem.
-
Features
Shooting reported at Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo
- Thread starter barbos
- Start date
The only relevant one would be Jesus himself, as he is the one they seek to emulate. Muslims seek to emulate Mohammed. If Mohammed was a bit of a monster, then that is a problem.
Sphincterboy
New member
This was taken a couple of years ago at a rally in Sydney in response to some stupid anti-islamic internet video of some kind. The lady taking a photo (because it's cute?) is the children's mother. She turned herself into the police a couple of days after the event and claimed that she didn't know what the words on the sign actually meant. Most rational people, I hope, would recoil in horror at this image. Not for the direct incident in question per se, but for what it means in 2 decades. These people have something wrong in their thought processes. Something that is incompatible with western civilisation as we know it. Recognition of a problem is the first step to formulating a solution.
You would do us all a huge favour and produce something from a moderate Muslim that contradics the idea that it is acceptable to intimidate on threat of death a publisher for the crime of blasphemy. The difference between 'moderate' and 'radical' islamist: One believes that Allah will smite the blasphemer and they will suffer in hell for all eternity, The other takes a slightly more direct approach.
repoman
Contributor
this is from 2010,
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
I think it's Ok to criticise religions and other organisations, people, and group of people, provided two conditions are met: first, that there is no rational justification that what you say is false. Here this condition is met because it is met for all religions, at least religions claiming something without proof, for example that some God exists.
The second condition is that the person, group of people, or organisation you criticised should have gone public with the view you criticised. It's not acceptable to publicly criticise people for their private behaviours and views.
The last condition does not apply to behaviours that are crimes according to the law of the country. So for example it's acceptable to publicly criticise a bishop guilty of sexual abuse as long as the crime can or has been be proven legally.
Also, if you see yourself as part of a group, you cannot complain about a public criticism of a behaviour or view itself made public by any member of the same group. This makes it difficult for Christians, Jews and Muslims to complain about Charlie Hebdo for example because there will always be some Christians, Jews and Muslims whose behaviour is public or who express their views publicly. The situation is different for the Catholic Church for example, or political parties, in that as constituted organisations they are able to exclude individuals from their ranks and it's not acceptable to criticise an organisation for the behaviour of somebody who is not a member (but I believe Charlie only criticised the public views and behaviours of the Chuch or members of the Church). Now a particular Jewish sect can do the same but still could not exclude a Jew from being a Jew, just as the Republican party could well exclude a Tea party supporter from its ranks but not from being a right-wing activist. Same thing for Muslims since as I understand it there is no central authority in Islam.
EB
Nonsense.
Moses is not the last prophet of Judaism as Muhammad is to Islam, but he is the central figure of the religion and the medium through which God communicated with the Jews. His behavior and example was of divine mandate and is massively important to how the religion is understood. Ditto the other OT prophets, who collectively dwarf Muhammad in the scale of their atrocities. Both the OT and NT contain innumerable messages that salvation comes only through God, and that disbelief or disobedience will be met with the sort of mass murder and genocide that the Hebrew Bible is replete with, and all are held up as moral and just. Also, Jesus' second coming, as described in Revelations, tops them all.
Historical evidence shows us that Christians (and Jews to a lesser extent) have never had any difficulty using scripture to justify mass murder on a scale that can match anything Muslims have done, and so the case some of you are trying to argue here fails.
It is a problem if people choose to use his example as a means for justifying violence. Most do not, just as most Jews and Christians don't take literally the Bible's clear commands to kill nonbelievers and homosexuals, which are God's word, and thus match or outstrip anything contained in the Qur'an and ahadith.
Was there a point in your posting this bullshit? Or did you simply realize that you are unable to defend your absurd generalizations about an entire religion, so you figure you'd start posting fearmongering propaganda instead?
Google indicates that that picture originated on BareNakedIslam, which is a rabid anti-Muslim hate site. Nothing from that site should be taken seriously by anyone. Is that the kind of source you regularly consult on these matters? What does that say? But even if the picture is real, what the fuck is your point? "I found a picture of a Muslim holding a sign, therefore I can pull generalizations about all Muslims out of my ass?"
Or, instead of asking me to explain basic concepts to you, maybe you could take all the time and energy you waste trolling on religious message boards, and downloading propaganda off of hate sites, to try Googling and finding the hundreds and thousands of condemnations against this sort of behavior from Muslims that have been made over the years.
Or, better yet, you could get off your ass, and instead of isolating yourself in a cocoon of ignorance and trying to render judgment on 1.5 billion people from behind your computer screen, you could go out in the real world and try actually talking to some of them. Did you ever think of that?
Somebody explain to every fucktard Muslim apologist that believing that savage barbarianism conducted by a pedophile is ideal conduct for humanity is irresponsible and it leads to violence and pacifist Muslims are just as guilty believing in such nonsense as the Muslims who enact violence because of it.
Last edited:
Such eloquence. I guess everyone who applies any modicum of intelligence or rational thought to these issues, rather than singling out one specific text with tunnel vision because it suits their ideological agenda, is a "fucktard Muslim apologist."
Edited
Last edited by a moderator:
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
Axulus
Veteran Member
Hmmm:
There is nothing insulting to Muslims themselves on the cover (it doesn't disparage them as individuals in any way).
And this country actually wanted to join the EU at one point? What a joke.
He's an Islamist. What do you expect?
Sphincterboy
New member
Propaganda? Fearmongering? Well yes I guess so. Straight from the horses mouth, as it were.
You are rather quick to ascribe motives to others. To call the above statement wrong would not really convey the utter boneheaded misconceived wrongness it contains. Nevertheless, I must call the above statement quite wrong.
I have never heard of 'BareNakedIslam'. Why would I need to? The photo I posted was front page news on every newspaper in Australia a couple of years ago and can probably be found on a thousand websites. It was taken during a protest/riot in downtown Sydney, as I tried to say previously. It shows a 4-year old boy holding a sign. The proud mother in the foreground is happily taking a snapshot of her gallant lad to show off later, presumably. She actually turned herself in to the police a few days after the event in question, claiming that she didn't know what the words on the sign meant. The Australian public, understandably, was rather horrified. They, and I, were concerned that when this child and his younger brother come of age, they will quite likely be a very real threat to the peace and security of our island nation. Or maybe not. Do you want to place bets?
Again, you ascribe actions and motivations to others that are not necessarily true. And rather than asserting the existence of these alleged 'condemnations', why don't you post some examples of some, so we can evaluate their merit and sincerity. The overwhelming majority of what I find on Islamic sites is mealy-mouthed gentle hand-slappy 'condemnation' quickly followed by something along the lines of "but it is simply unacceptable for Muslims to have the prophet pbuh mocked. People need to respect the Islamic cultural values and not offend us in such ways. How do you expect to live in peace while you offend Muslims like this?" and usually goes on with some colorful metaphors that involve cowering rats and divine retribution. But I'm sure that is just my poor Googling skills.
On a side note, a search on Google Images for the string "muslim protest" brings up some pretty interesting pictures. Would you like me to post them also? That is evidence to support my thesis. I haven't seen much supporting yours, or any valid counterargument other than calling my interpretation of verifiable events "ignorant bullshit".
Well, pardon me. I work a rather demanding full-time job and have 3 kids. When possible I try to educate myself about the world around me. I talk to as many people as I can, and am often horrified by people's reaction to current events. The detention of asylum seekers in Papua New Guinea is an example. A stain on our nation, but gleefully embraced by the majority of my fellow countrymen. My attempts to persuade these folk would be a lot easier if it weren't for devout Muslims hacking and shooting ordinary innocent people.
Oh, OK. Now let me go find a picture of an ultra orthodox Jew holding up a nutty sign as though that told us something about how all Jews think, or a picture of the Black Panthers, how blacks think.
You can call it whatever you want; anyone with the inclination can go simply read what you originally posted. I'll make it easy for them:
Well, that is rather the point. When it comes to insults to the prophet, and acceptable responses, 'moderate' Muslims will respond, universally, with something that would not be out of place in a rabid fundamentalist site of any religious nature. About the most mild statement you will get is something along the lines of "if you play with fire, expect to get burned"
That's you claiming, in essence, that there are no moderate Muslims, and no real condemnations of the sort of violence we've seen in Paris.
And that's fucking ignorant bullshit not worthy of a site dedicated to rational thought. So don't accuse me of ascribing unfair motivations to you; all I need to understand your motivations is read what you originally posted, before you started the backpedaling and goalpost shifting.
No, I don't want to place bets. I want you to actually address the issue at hand and stop tossing out red herrings, which is what ideologues usually do when they can't defend their position.
It is not my job, nor anyone else's, to correct your baseless, mistaken assumptions about how 1.5 billion people think. It's your job to explain to the rest of us why we ought to take them seriously. You haven't.
And need I remind you that you are shifting the goalposts -- again, the hallmark of an ideologue. Your original claim was this:
When it comes to insults to the prophet, and acceptable responses, 'moderate' Muslims will respond, universally, with something that would not be out of place in a rabid fundamentalist site of any religious nature. About the most mild statement you will get is something along the lines of "if you play with fire, expect to get burned
The fact that you've apparently been trolling the same Muslim website for 10 years despite being convinced that its members are beyond reasoning with, and yet have never in that time spent a minute searching for the literally thousands of clear condemnations against violence by Muslims, is proof positive that you are not a serious commentator on the issue, and are in no position to demand anything of anyone.
No, just the fact that you live in an ideological cocoon and are not interested in seeing or hearing anything that might challenge it, as was readily apparent from the start.
No, Google Image search is not evidence to support your "thesis" that there are no moderate Muslims that condemn this kind of violence. And before spamming the thread with propaganda pictures, you might want to consult the forum's rules against fearmongering, which were put in place precisely because of what you're doing now.
My thesis is this: you are an ideologue who is attempting (poorly) to conceal his prejudice against Muslims. And the only evidence I need is your own posts, and the CTRL + C and V keys.
Yeah, that must be why you've posted almost 3,000 times, for almost 10 years, on a website filled with Muslims you think are fanatics, rather than trying to talk to any in the real world.
Please.
Last edited:
When you have something even remotely intelligent to contribute to the discussion, let us know.
no denials only whimpering?
when you're ready to criticize Muhammad we'll listen, heck you might even get a button!
So you're saying that Mohammad was not a pedophile and did not engage in violent conflict?