My initial tweet about Bacile, the person said to be responsible for the film mocking the prophet Mohammed, was not because I am against the First Amendment. My tweets reflected my exasperation that as a religion professor, it is difficult to teach the facts when movies such as Bacile's Innocence of Muslims are taken as both truth and propaganda, and used against innocent Americans.
If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!
So why did I tweet that Bacile should be in jail? The "free speech" in Bacile's film is not about expressing a personal opinion about Islam. It denigrates the religion by depicting the faith's founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers. Even the film's actors say they were duped.
Bacile's movie is not the first to denigrate a religious figure, nor will it be the last. The Last Temptation of Christ was protested vigorously. The difference is that Bacile indirectly and inadvertently inflamed people half a world away, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Embassy personnel. (Continue Reading.)
Thursday, September 13, 2012
University of Pennsylvania Professor Anthea Butler Calls for Arrest and Prosecution of Those Who Mock Muhammad
Muslims continue killing people over cartoons, films, and books that mock their prophet. What's the solution? According to University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler, we simply need to outlaw speech that makes Muslims angry. Hmmm, why didn't the rest of us think of that?
I wanted to point out that I disagree with the harming of anyone for drawing cartoons of the prophet (pbuh), but I do believe that it is a hate crime and legal actions should be taken against those who draw these insulting and offensive cartoons. To be honest, I would rather someone make fun of me, my skin colour, mother, etc... than insult the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Also, we must take into account the fact that these people who are drawing cartoons are well aware of what could happen to them if they do this. That is like a white man walking around the streets of Brooklyn shouting the N word to every black person in sight. They are asking for trouble and seem surprised by the backlash.
She believes in free speech, just some free speech is more important than others! Completely Orwellian. Notice, she never says what is "inaccurate" about the depeictions of the prophet in the movie.
" it is also important to remember that other countries and cultures do not have to understand or respect our right."
WSell, it's good to see Mrs. Butler thinks respecting rights is optional. Muslim sensitivities is secondary to our freedoms and rights as Americans! Disgusting.
I was listening to NPR radio, the guest was a columnist for News Week Magazine. He was pontificating about how "FAR RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN EXTREMIST" are just as crazy as the Muslim who are rioting and attacking our embassy's.
I guess no one told him that "RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN EXTREMIST" are not attacking the embassies in Egypt and Libya or Killing Muslim Ambassadors.
Why is it that Muslims are the only group in the world that is excused from behaving civilized?
She says in here article
"It denigrates the religion by depicting the faith's founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers."
I agree (and this is where I fault the makers of the movie), that the scenes where created to incite and inflame viewers. However they where historically accurate. Its a shame the makers of the film did not overlay the scenes with quotations from the Haddeth, the Sirah and the opinions of the Islmaic Scholars.
The Author also writes...
"Bacile's movie is not the first to denigrate a religious figure, nor will it be the last. The Last Temptation of Christ was protested vigorously. The difference is that Bacile indirectly and inadvertently inflamed people half a world away, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Embassy personnel. "
Yes it was protested vigorously, but no one was murdered, no embassy's where stormed, no Ambassadors killed.
Why is it that Muslims are not held to the same standards as the civilized world?
@Samatar - You moron !! Why is that when non Moslems do something it is racial crime. But when Moslems kill, rape(even 10 year old children) and murder, it is because their feelings have been offended. Mohammed was a paedophile, womaniser and murderer, there are historical contexts which prove it beyond doubt. The depiction in the film was in bad taste, but hell yeah somebody had the balls to mock Mohammed. Man even Jesus is lampooned as moving around with topless beauties in heaven, but Christians don't start murdering others because of it.
Based upon your logic....ALL palenstinian shows, as a matter of fact ALL arab shows that show ANY sort of hate crime against the JEWS(JUDAISM) or AMERICANS(CHRISTIANITY) should also be considered hate crime? Yet your books clearly states "Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other.
Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah . . .
Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them.
Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain.
Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Please tell me where in the NEW TESTAMENT it says for CHRISTIANS to KILL anyone who doesn't believe in what we believe? And Do NOT take it anything out of context?
Why can't we insult Muhammad? Do YOU look to him as a role model?
If so, they you're okay with killing people? Okay with killing tribes? Okay with killing infidels? Okay with marrying a 6 year old? Okay with consumating that marriage to a 9 year old? You okay with beating that wife? You okay with marrying up to 4 wives? If you say NO to any one of them, they you would NOT be following Muhammad and would be considered a apostate and you know what happens to apostates don't you?
@ Radical Moderate-
the film was NOT the cause of the chaos on 9/11/12. It was planned months in advanced and has possible ties to Al Queda or some other crazy wack job islamists group for an agenda.
That is precisely, the point "professor",
"Bacile's movie is not the first to denigrate a religious figure, nor will it be the last. The Last Temptation of Christ was protested vigorously......"
There were no christian violence as result of the movie.. verbal protest...
It seems that muslim needs to assist their "god".
" If man does the work its imperfect but when God does the work it is perfect."
Notice how she equivocates in her message. She wants to have her cake tomorrow but also eat it all up today. Wants to be fashionably anti-Western and anti-free speech, but only coyly, making the statement then half-denying it, so she can't be called to account for her flirtation with religious fascists, and at the same time can pretend with her allies that she's being indirectly and cutely impertinent and impudent toward "power," tweaking the "establishment." Supposedly apropos of her topic, but in fact with pompous pretention, she writes of herself, "as a professor of religion..."
If it were in my power I'd fire her for pretension and dishonesty.
Now this is a perfect example of a strawman. In my very first sentence I pointed out that I am against the harming of anyone for drawing these pictures, videos, etc... of the prophet (pbuh). I then said that I believe that legal actions should be taken against them because it is a hate crime. A hate crime is a bias-motivated violence that can be done in many ways such as verbal/ physical abuse, harassment, and insulting by letter/ drawings, etc... When someone draws these pictures, their whole point is to target the muslim community by insulting our prophet (pbuh). Now, if someone was arguing against the prophet hood with facts then it is not a hate crime for obvious reasons, but I think we all know the intentions of these people. Again, I am not for violence against these people, but what they are doing is definitely a crime.
@Samatar - the drawings and criticism of muhammed is the same as someone racing into the street of Brooklyn and stopping the guy from shouting the N word. People not brainwashed by Ilsam know there is something terribly wrong with it. The secularist can only react by drawing cartoons and questioning muhammed's moral character. The Christian reacts by showing that muhammed is not in the line of God's prophets, that the quran contradicts earlier revelation etc.
Now let's see if Samatar is going to be consistent. He claims that making a highly offensive film is a hate crime, and should be prosecuted as such.
Let's take a simple verse of the Qur'an. Surah 98:6 calls Jews and Christians who reject Islam "the worst of creatures." This is highly offensive and insulting to us. Hence, following Samatar's reasoning, the Qur'an should be banned as hate speech.
Do you agree, Samatar? Should the Qur'an be illegal?
The situation is nothing like your analogy.
It is like a white man shouting the N word on Bondi Beach and some blacks murdering a (different) white man in Brooklyn because of it. It would never happen, most people not poisoned by Islam can see that attacking someone who had nothing to do with the person causing offence is unjust.
Also you really do need to manufacture some offence taking to be offended by someone taking the rip out of a dead prophet. It is completely different to calling a black person, who may have experienced prejudice and discrimination from the majority white section of society, the N word.
Seth MacFarlene should be arrested for offending the religious feelings of Christians, Jews, and Mormons.
But of course no one would really call for that. Hey, guys, maybe we should riot the next time an episode of Family Guy or American Dad! airs in which Christianity or Christians are denigrated. Then maybe politicians will apologize to us, and professors will call for MacFarlene (and everyone else who publicly insults Christianity) to be tried for hate-crimes. Except that wouldn't happen at all!
Actually, wouldn't it be cool, to show how ridiculous the situation is, to put on a fake riot against people who blaspheme Christianity, and "kill" a bunch of actors pretending to be atheists. We would use fake blood and everything. Then we could watch the media not blame the blasphemers and give the "rioters" the negative coverage they deserve. Then we would reveal a week later that it was all fake.
Hey Samatar, it's been a while. did you get the chance to review those quotes I pointed out by your fellow Muslims Osama, Kim etc. and condemn them? If not, why not?
Also, if criticizing (truthfully) Mohammad should be a hate crime, then why is bringing up the hateful commands of Mohammad a "straw man"?
That lady is extremely delusional.
Ok so other people don't have to respect our rights but we have to respect theirs?
Samatar our founding fathers were rational men unlike all the tyrants and dictators that have dominated the middle east.
This article was shared on another blog, and I would like to share the following from it:
"Reflecting on the Muslim celebrations on the 11th year anniversary of 9-11 that left a US Ambassador dead along with two of his yet un named aids, I would like to point out a few facts and ask a question.
1. This Movie was made over a year ago, by as of yet unknown producers. It was first reported by Muslims celebrating in Egypt that the movie was made by Coptic Christians. Later it was reported that it was made by an Israeli Jew with donations from Jewish donors. Now it is being reported that it was “Far Right Wing Christians” with ties to Militia groups who made the movie.
2. Actors who appear in the movie report that script they read from was titled “Desert Warrior”, and it was to be a movie on how life was in Egypt 1400 years ago. Nothing about religion, or Mohamed or Islam was in the script or spoken by the actors.
3. It is clear to anyone who has watched the movie that any mention of Mohamed or Islam was later overdubbed at a later date.
4. The film which was called “Innocence of Bin Laden” was shown one time in a seedy run down theater on Hollywood Blvd on June 23rd to an audience of less than ten people.
5. No one that I know of knew of this movie. It was not reported on any freedom loving Anti Jihadi blog, like Atlas Shruggs, Jihad Watch, AnsweringMuslims etc..
6. It wasn’t until it was transcribed into Arabic and then posted on YouTube channels apparently by Muslims that Jihadi’s first became aware of the movie.
7. Muslims celebrating 9-11 in Egypt and Libiya now drunk on the blood lust of Jihad, used the movie as an excuse to try to recreate another glorious day for Islam. The capture and taking of hostages at the US Embassy in Iran.
8. It is now thought and with good reason that the attack on the US Embassy in Libya was a coordinated well thought out and planned attack.
With all these facts in view, could it be that the movie or the latter offensive overdubbing is the product of Muslims?"
Hmmmm. Good question!
Obviously the biggest tragedy is Chris Stevens is dead. But it is not just those committing the violence that are wrong; all the protestors are acting foolishly. The US government doesn't produce movies so why would people protest in front of the embassy?
I'm the one who wrote that as a comment on another thread on this Blog. I'm curious did you see my comment re posted on another Blog?
No David the Quran should not be illegal. Again, the reason I called it a hate crime is because of the intent of the individual and what they are trying to accomplish by their actions. The purpose of the Quran is not to offend those of other religions with no basis whatsoever, rather, The Quran says that Jews and christians are the worst of creations along with explanations. Allah (swt) says that the Jews and Christians went astray after clear evidence was provided to them. They indulged in evil actions therefore are the worst of creation. The Quran is substantiating it's claims unlike these people who are drawing these pictures. I even pointed out earlier that when someone criticizes Islam with facts, evidence, and their purpose is not to mock or insult Islam but instead to provide information then I see no problem with that. I find it fascinating that we are even having this discussion. There is a huge difference between mocking a religion and criticizing a religion. If someone wants to criticize christianity they would find faults in it by tackling its core teachings, finding contradictions, errors, lack of coherency, irrational and illogical concepts. When someone wants to mock christianity, they simply draw an extremely offensive image of Jesus christ. They serve different purposes with different intent.
John, lets be upfront about this. There is a huge difference between criticizing and mocking the prophet (pbuh). Lets say you meet a homosexual christian and use two different methods.
1. In the first method you speak to him kindly informing him about why his actions are strictly against the bible, providing biblical verses to substantiate your claims.
2. In the second method you go up to the homosexual individual and say " I hate you F****ot".
Do you see the difference in the two approaches. The intent is clearly different. The intent of the first method is to show the homosexual his faults and lead him to what is right. The intent of the second approach is to instill hatred to the homosexual. The purpose is to get the homosexual offended, insulted, and angered.
While society is still paying attention to media starring Muhammad, we need to release a cartoon on youtube where Muhammad's death by poison and accompanying verses are displayed. I want to see if reading certain verses of the Qur'an and Hadith are considered offensive to Islam. Oh who am I kidding, they will.
How about the sun setting in a pool of water?
isn't that irrational, illogical, contradictory, foolish, stupid?
Why is it that Muskims are the only ones that act like jackasses when they feel insulted?
So then, you agree that if you critisize Islam, giving reasons why Islam is false, and bad (i.e. pointing to the example of mohammad, contradictions etc.) then that shouldn't be criminilized?
You also don't agree with Osama when he calls people like Robert Spencer "criminals" for critisizing Islam, and giving reasons? (Maybe you should tell him so. You've condemned things he'd said, but it'd be nice if you actually TOLD Osama directly when he goes wrong.) also, again, did you look at those comments by Kim, Osama etc. and are willing to condemn them? It shouldn't take this much time to look at them and see they are vile.
The questioin of course is still begged, was the video simply insulting, or did it actually give reasons. It seems muslism get awfully upset and violent, even when mohammad or Islam is "insulted" giving reasons (such as pointing out Mohammad's bad behavior), so the dinstinction seems to not matter to muslism.
Actually thinking about it, even making that distinction of with facts and intention to insult shows you don't understand how freedom works in the west. Even calling black people the N word, or calling a gay person a f****t should NOT be criminalized. It's rude and annoying, but it's freedom of speech. My freedom of speech is NOT based on the feelings of others. If it was, then freedom would become subjective to the whims of others, and thus there would be no more freedom (which is exactly what Islamic supremiscists like the OIC and CAIR want!
It is really sad to see all the violence, in the Islamic countries.
Perhaps, the worst is that, the sharia law, is being gradually implemented, and openly used, in the western countries such UK.
Please spend five of your precious minutes to check this shocking news from a well known British newspaper:
Thank you very much, and GOD bless you all.
Again you make a totally false analogy. They are offensive remarks made to individual persons (black people in the first and homosexuals in the second) who don't have any choice in the way they are and who are often abused and, or discriminated for that. The video is mocking a religion - i.e. an ideology which people CHOOSE to believe.
Anthea, words do have consequences.
Islam is profane.
Mohammed is a false prophet.
The Muslim "Allah" is a demon.
Nothing shows it more strongly than your hatred and the Ummah's violence.
Submission is the keyword of Islam.
Abandon hope, all who enter here.
There is no difference between submission and the gate of hell.
Again, I am not for violence against these people, but what they are doing is definitely a crime.
Then you are for the violence of law over the violence of the mob.
You favor violence under the cover of law, and then claim that you are for the rule of law.
But your law is not reason.
It is force and fear, it is evil.
"I wanted to point out that I disagree
with the harming of anyone for
drawing cartoons of the prophet
(pbuh), but I do believe that it is a hate
crime and legal actions should be
taken against those who draw these insulting and offensive cartoons. To be
honest, I would rather someone make
fun of me, my skin colour, mother, etc...
than insult the prophet Muhammad
(pbuh). Also, we must take into
account the fact that these people who are drawing cartoons are well aware
of what could happen to them if they
You are just another hypocrite like your counterpart Osama, done in true islamic style. Its OK for you to feel offended when people mock muhammad but you were silent when your fellow muslim insinuated that my God was sexually weak and probably masturbated and long for a wife. You conveniently kept your mouth halaal by not offending the ummah.
Well let me tell you, first of all, you believe muhammad was a prophet, I dont. I do believe that he was a rapist, child molester and a robber living of plunderings. There is nothing holy about muhammad and his quran. I also believe that the quran is a vile and disgusting handbook of war that advocates the killing and mutilation of people who do not believe "prophet" muhammad.
The quran along with islam should be criminalised in all free countries.
You didnt see the christians burning down mosques and killing muslims when Osama mocked my God why?
In Christ, For Christ, By Christ
The talking heads are saying that Americans do not support the making of Innocence of Mohamed. Well I am an American, and although I do not support the way the Movie was done, nor do I support the reasons why the movie was made. I do support the right of any American to make such a movie.
Do you guys realize there is a sold out Broadway Musical, that has won awards called "The Book of Mormon". It was created by the creators of South Park and it is extremely offensive to Mormons.
How come Mormons have not been burning, rioting, pillaging and killing?
You said:"No David the Quran should not be illegal. Again, the reason I called it a hate crime is because of the intent of the individual and what they are trying to accomplish by their actions. The purpose of the Quran is not to offend those of other religions with no basis whatsoever, rather, The Quran says that Jews and christians are the worst of creations along with explanations."
-first you don't know what was his real intention, as i see it, he wanted to expose Muhammad "prophethood", using the same Islamic sources, yes i must agree that it has a real bad acting skills, yet the info there is in your own hadiths. Then you say the porpose of the Quran was not to offend, but you can't know that, as you did with the intentions of the creator of this film, you are assuming his intentions, but why should i believe that, according to the Hadiths Muhammad even told once a Pagan to "suck manat(or al lutza, i can't remeber now) clitoris" that would be highly offensive to anyone, he would easily say: "Go suck Mary's ....." if he wouldn't believe in Mary too. So Muhamamd and the Quran are nowhere close to be respectful, but let's see what the Quran transmit to people whether porposly or not, it says we are the worst of creatures, we can't even be your friends because that would make you as bad as we are, so as i can (and anyone with a brain) can see, it's refering to us as Jews were to Nazis, we are sub human, we are evil, we are nothing good... that's highly offensive for any Christian or Jews, not mentioning Atheist and Polytheists. It's also highly offensive what the quran say we believe when it's a total lie, i.e that we believe Mary is 1 god and we worship her, making us polytheists... that's highly offensive, the difference is that the situations in that movie are true according to your own Islamic sources, yet what The quran says about us is not true according to Christians sources, so it's actually the Quran the one who insult us and say lies about us, yet this movie Insult you but it's actually true. So should we all Ban the quran from the western society? according to your own logic, we should!!!!
Why don't you move to Gaza professor Butler, so we don't have to hear your nonsense anymore.
"They are offensive remarks made to individual persons (black people in the first and homosexuals in the second) who don't have any choice in the way they are and who are often abused and, or discriminated for that."
I find what you just said to be very interesting assuming you are a christian. You went as far as to equate homosexuality with a persons skin color. Well if someone has no choice as to their sexual preference then how exactly is it a sin if you truly believe that God did not give them a choice in the matter whatsoever. Also, you missed the point of my analogy. My point was to show that there are clearly different intentions behind the mocking of ones religion and criticizing it. Lastly, it seems most of you do not agree with the mocking of the prophet (pbuh) but you believe that under freedom of speech they should have the right to do it. The reason I disagree with this notion is because there are different forms of abuse from physical abuse, verbal abuse, etc... When someone draws extremely offensive drawings of not just the prophet (pbuh) but of any other religion I believe that is a form of abuse that should be considered illegal. Feel free to disagree if you like but I believe verbal abuse or abuse by images or graffiti can be just as damaging as physical abuse.
I already said that I disagree some of what they have said. But they have all explicitly said they disagree with offensive violence against non muslims.
@Samatar: No, you said you disagree with what Osama said, and that you'd,look at the rest. That was the last I heard from you. Do I take you HAVE reviewed the comments by Kangaroo, Kim et. al. and reject them, and apologize for your negligence in missing them and making the (unintentionally) false statement that there are only moderate Muslims who comment here?
I notice, you still have not spoken DIRECTLY to any Muslim, such as Osama who has made violent and bigoted statements here since our last discussion. Why is that? Why can't (or won't) you directly confront Osama as a Muslim brother, instead of telling us you reject what he says? It would mean much more if you did.
Alright, so if they have called for violence and subjegation against non-muslims (as I have clearly pointed out,m and you seem to acknowledge (finally!) ) and also spoken out as being against violence, there is an obvious contradiction. They obviously cannot believe both, so why do you ASSUME it is the later, and not the former? Would you give an equally schizophrenic non-Muslim who calls for mistreating or killing of Muslims, and then also says he is against violence against Muslims the same benefit of the doubt? If not, why not?
Re homosexuals; some people think one thing others another, as for me personally, I would not judge (I was writing from their perspective anyhow).
Now please don't run away from the point. Your analogy links things said about a dead prophet with those said to a live person. The Muslims offended are, by and large, from countries where Muslims dominate not where they are oppressed minorities. Those attacked and killed in their embassies didn't produce the film, so I don't know why you are blithering on about "intentions".
I'll give you a better analogy: a German in the thirties, listening to Hitler's speeches that inspired him to take offence at Jews and destroys their shops and dwellings.
Samamtar the offence taken by those Muslims is not real, it is manufactured by hate, anyone and everyone knows it. You are trying to run away from the ugly truth about your religion; that it is a religion, not of love, but of hate. Gain back your humanity by acknowledging that.
The Old Testament is about man working out for his salvation and it records man's pathetic, futile attempt at it.
The New Testament we see God working out & cleared the path for man's salvation, as God knows without His direct intervention, man is doomed for eternity.
Now, here comes satan to re-introduce some form of the "old testament" & presto! we have islam, and muslims have been deceived into thinking that they have to work out their "salvation", through destruction & killing in "god's/muhammad's " name, in the misguided believe that they are pleasing their "god" to gain their salvation!
The Bible says that when the Gospel is preached to the whole world and with the advent of technology, we surely are close at hand for the end times, looking forward to the rapture :)
Samatar is so inconsistent and infantile. I read her response to my 10 year old and he thinks the writer makes no sense whatsover.
Shame on you samatar for defending evil and violence on the vulnerable.
Again I am truly fascinated by your stance. Regarding whether homosexuality is a choice you said that you are not judging. The Bible stance is clearly against homosexuality.
1 corinthians 6 verse 9
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men"
Homosexuals will not enter heaven according to this verse.
Leviticus 20 verse 18
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
So it is quite obvious that if homosexuality is a choice and the God of the Bible is clearly against it.
So what exactly is wrong with what I have said. I am clearly against the harming of others for mocking the prophet (pbuh) and we agree. Clearly the video and the pictures people have drawn over the years were meant to mock the prophet (pbuh) and I am pretty sure we agree. Homosexuality is a choice by man, not a desire forced upon them by God and we are yet to see if you agree to this point. The difference comes when I label the mocking a hate crime that should be considered illegal. Feel free to disagree with this claim but provide your reasons why please. I already pointed out that verbal abuse or any other forms of abuse involving graffiti, or drawings can be just as damaging as physical violence (Which is illegal).
I have already told you that if I see any muslims calling for, or agreeing to offensive violence against muslims I will be the first to condemn them. I have and hopefully will do that until I die. I have not seen any of Osama Abdullah's recent posts, but if I do see him calling for violence against non muslims who are not opressiong muslims then I will condemn him. However, if muslims are being oppressed like how the Jews are oppressing the Palastenians I have absolutely no problem with violence to defend oneself and get rid of corruption.
Your post in many ways doesn't really completely respond to what I've said, and instead side-steps.
You haven't addressed your obviously flawed response, that those who are calling for violencve and subjegztion of non-muslims (i.e. "bloodbaths" against Copts for merely being Copts as Osama has done) are also speaking against it. You failed to explain how when someone calls for both violence and non-violence why you choose the non-violent as the default of how they actually feel, or how calls of non-violence somehow cancel out calls of violence. Don't you see how this is a flawed argument, and that, desite other statements made by a person, making violent/suppremist statements are simply BAD? I'll ask again: Would you extend this same sentiment to a non-muslim making both violent and non-violent statements about muslims? If not, why not?
You also ignored what I said about talking DIRECTLY to the Muslims. as I said, it would be far more meaningful then saying TO US that you condemn these. why not set straight your Muslim brothers and sisters. If you want to change the hearts and minds of those misunderstanding your religion, HERE IS YOUR CHANCE! Why is it so difficult to call out Osama when he smears Christians (claiming that Christianity causes rape, drunk driving and wars, when this is ridiculous), or mangles scripture? or falsely smears non-muslims such as myself? Don't you wish Muslims to be honest, so why not tell them so when they are dishonest? it shouldn't be hard to do if you actually do condemn these actions.
What you said about Israel oppressing palastianains is nonsense. There is no oppression of palastinains (Israli Arabs enjoy more rights in Isreal than elsewhere in the middle east, so a charge of racism makes no sense). Isreal has every right to exist (as much right as Jordan, and a handful of other Arab states), and the security measures (walls and checkpoints) only exist because of PALASTINAN TERRORISM shooting rockets at Isreali civilians. and CALLS OF GENOCIDE (including teaching children) against the Jews). The war of 1948 was not started by Isreal, but a cololition of Arab states with the aim of eliminating the Jewish state. You're repeating a false narrative that is not true to historical fact. I highly recommend this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09pmTh64vD8
And I'd be happy to discuss anything you think the video gets wrong.
Be that as it may, regardless of how you feel about Isreal, Osama is, quite clearly an anti-Semite. He said that evil is in a Jew's blood. That goes FAR beyond disagreeing with Isreal policy, and into the relm of RACISM. (http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/08/ahmadinejad-calls-israels-existence.html)
He's also compared Christians to White supremiscists. Surry, you'd object to such a sweeping (and frankly, bigoted) statement?
He's called for the criminalization of critisism of Islam, even if it is based on fact. http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=1248731358068510981
(He called Search4Truth a "criminal" even though he didn't say anything incorrect about Mohammad). It seems very oddly convienent how you never post in the same topic as Osama, or other Islmaic supremiscists here like Kim or Kangaroo, Like you're avoiding them or something. >.> <.<
Re Homosexuals; what are you on?! I said I didn't judge and was speaking from their perspective, and then you trot out all that - amazing, and a little bit phoney bearing in mind all the love shown to gays from Muslims. Again you compare ridicule of an ideology to that against gays and blacks (oh yeah I can see you changed tack halfway through your argument; so black decide their own skin colour do they?).
By arguing that people are justified in getting all sensitive to others' ridicule of their ideology and beliefs to the extent they riot and murder innocents, you are just another peddler of hate and tyranny. You and other "moderate" Muslims use the fanatics as your attack dogs to further the tyranny Islam imposes. So by not condemning the violent action, purportedly against the film, and saying it is wrong: no ifs, no buts, you are no different morally than those that support it.
pls read the comments of Osama, We have tried correcting him on the scientific facts but his page is still up
" ...and a little bit phoney bearing in mind all the love shown to gays from Muslims."
Hahaha, that was the most obnoxious comment I have ever heard. If anything muslims are extremely hard on gays. I don't know where exactly you got that idea from but you might want to look into the accuracy of it.
"By arguing that people are justified in getting all sensitive to others' ridicule of their ideology and beliefs to the extent they riot and murder innocents, you are just another peddler of hate and tyranny. You and other "moderate" Muslims use the fanatics as your attack dogs to further the tyranny Islam imposes. So by not condemning the violent action, purportedly against the film, and saying it is wrong: no ifs, no buts, you are no different morally than those that support it."
Ok, John is this some kind of joke. I have condemned the violence against those who have mocked the prophet (pbuh) several times already. Here is what I said in previous comments ( You can verify):
"I wanted to point out that I disagree with the harming of anyone for drawing cartoons of the prophet (pbuh)..."
"Now this is a perfect example of a strawman. In my very first sentence I pointed out that I am against the harming of anyone for drawing these pictures, videos, etc... of the prophet (pbuh)."
" I am not for violence against these people, but what they are doing is definitely a crime."
"So what exactly is wrong with what I have said. I am clearly against the harming of others for mocking the prophet (pbuh) and we agree."
I have not argued that muslims have the right to kill innocent, rather, I have said the exact opposite. My argument is that legal actions should be taken against those who mock the prophet (pbuh) with videos, drawings, etc...
Foolster, I have condemned muslims who call for violence, or even imply it against innocent non muslims. I have done so in this very blog. The thing is I'm not following this blog on a daily basis. There will be times I will visit frequently, and other times I get busy and won't visit the site at all. You can hold me to my word that if I see a muslim calling for violence, misrepresenting Islam, christianity, or any religion for that matter that I will address them directly. This will be my last response to this though in the meantime because I am quite tired of repeating myself.
@Samatar: There's no need to repeat yourself at all!
You asked me for proof of when posters here were preaching violence and told you me you wou8ldn't beleive it until you were shown (and in fact, I had to show it multiple times). well then, when did you DIRECTLY call out a fellow muslim? I think I remember maybe once. as I said, it seems odd to me how you never seem to read the same topics that Osama, Kim or Kangaroo. The odds of that for someone "actively" reading this blog seems staggeringly unlikely to me.
You still haven't addressed how calling for non-violence against non-muslims somehow dispells the violence and calls of subjegation as Osama, Kim or Kangaroo. Now that I've brought those recent posts by Osama to your attention (and where they are) will you go and tell Osama he is wrong and misunderstanding his religion? If not, why not? These are all things not yet answered, so repeating is not nessicery!
when you're as deceived and delusional as Samatar it's better just to leave one like him alone.
I wish I was Paul so that I could hand one like him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh so that his soul may be saved.
I realized you didn't say you were reading actively. Sorry, I misread. Still, it does strike me as odd that you never post in topics that Osama, Kim or Kangaroo post in.
Er?: irony calling, anyone there?
"I wanted to point out that I disagree with the harming of anyone for drawing cartoons of the prophet (pbuh)..."
Weasel word: "disagree"; disagreeing with the murder of people either connected or not connected with their publication for the "offence" or "blasphemy" caused doesn't remotely amount to a condemnation of the actions. Have the dignity to admit it, or state unambiguously that you condemn the violence against anyone over the Mo cartoons or recent Mo film.
" I am not for violence against these people, but what they are doing is definitely a crime."
An allegation, an enticement at worst, or excuse at best for the violence. Please be specific how is it "definitely a crime"? please quote the legal references in criminal law (which you must have seeing how you're so definite it's a crime).
"I have not argued that muslims have the right to kill innocent, rather, I have said the exact opposite. "
Hahaha - nice one, anyone innocent is okay, but then you and other Muslims say the actions of people you don't like are "definitely a crime" i.e. are guilty: so they are not innocent in your eyes? Even more disgusting than that; just by saying "muslims do not have the right to kill the innocent" it's clear you believe muslims [what any muslim?, all muslims?] have the right (the right?!) to kill the guilty: which demonstrates how morally sick and depraved you are.
So let me see if I get this? If you or any muslim, self appointed imam, mulslim tv host says it's a crime, it's a crime; and then any muslim can kill the criminal - no trial, no jury, no defence, no pleading, no evidence, no scrutiny, no extenuating circumstances, nothing but the screaming Muslim mob.
Samatar I'd love to meet you and dissect your dark age mindset, in my walk of life I never meet such barbarity face to face.
You are so illogical and hypocritical it is fascinating.
You say that the hate speech in the Quran is justified because it goes on to explain why it hates. LOL! So what.
Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)
Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)
So now you believe that if it gives an explanation for its hate and DIRECT commands for violence. Then it is justified? LOL! That is so profoundly dumb I am in awe of you. Ok well here is the justification for the film. And then you wont be able to say it is hate speech.
The film depicts Mohamed in a way that he believes was accurate. And i didnt see anything in it that was to far fetched. And in all reality Mohameds true sunna is far more depraved and violent the in the film. you are an excellent example of what Islam does to the mind and soul of a human being. Please, keep it up. Whenever you and Ossoma post here. Its more ammunition against Islam! Peace!
I condemn the actions of those muslims who are harming those who mocking the prophet (pbuh). Is that good enough for you?
@Samatar: I'm holding you to your word, as you say, but I still don't see any replies to Osama in those topics I brought to your attention. I get the strange feeling that you don't actually mean what you're say. I see you had time to post a reply to John.
Also, while a blanket condemnation of violence is good, it find it odd how you avoid condemning specific statements by Kim and Kangaroo when repeatedly asked. (You're the one making ME repeat myself. )
Here's the list of comments I've been talking about.
And to be clear, I'm only pushing you this hard because you made the claim there are only "moderate" Muslims on this board, a claim that is obviously FALSE and shows you either are ignoring these comments that call for violence, or are not being very careful when you make such statements.
(Also, maybe you missed it, but I posted above John's post).
Wow, there are a million entries for this one. Anyway, here it is: printing in nj .
Post a Comment