Mohammed Descendents Sue

[The Illuminator]

You do... you get them from biased lop-sided sources and take them for fact.

No, they are reliable sources. If you call sources like BBC, The Guardian, etc. as biased lop sided sources, then I am free to believe that you trust nothing apart from your confused mind and in such a case, I wish you well in your mind, which seems to believe 'nothing' at all.

 

Ahmedinejad famously said there are 'no homosexuals in Iran'. There are two conclusions. 1: Ahmedinejad is ignorant of what goes on in his country. 2: He knows that they have all been killed off and lies to our country to make us look 'corrupt and degenerate'. He deserves more than the 'finger'.

Those conclusions are your personal imaginations about the reasoning for what Ahmedinejat says and obviously has 'no' scientific support.

 

Also, what does Obama have to do with murders by the KKK you nut? Has Obama said ANYTHING about the KKK, denying their existence?

You have kept Ahmedinejat responsible from your claim of murders of homosexuals in Iran, and I have said that in such a case according to your interesting logic, Obama must be responsible from the murders of KKK in the USA.

 

In fact, during the Middle Ages, Muslims and non-Muslims (Christians included), lived in peace and harmony in what have been arguably some of the most tolerant and progressive regimes of the time: the Caliphates. Characterized by a respect of individual rights (including, but not limited to, freedom of religion and freedom of expression), and an adherence to an early form of the rule of law, different peoples coexisted and worked together to bring about the "Golden Age" of Islam -- one of the most bright periods of Islamic history and comparable to the European Renaissance period in scope.

 

So, no. It was merely the Pope and those who relied on him for validation of their authority that "hated Muslims", and only because back then the Muslim world was the dominant power.

 

Free speech cannot lead to the polarisation you warn against -- that's the role of ignorance, to which suppression of free speech is conducive.

 

I must also say that in the Golden Ages you have talked about no Christ was teasing the holy figures of Muslims or no Muslims were teasing the holy figures of Christs. In fact that is respect. Irrespectfulness and polarisation hunger cannot be masked under freedom of speech, as the freeness of this freedom of speech is also in doubt as it seems it is only free when someone is to insult Islamic figures and not free when someone is to say something which is against the political benefits of the country which defends freedom of speech.

 

For instance in India as cows are 'holy', women are being used in the farm instead of them, or in most of the Buddhist countries female children are not considered as valuable as male children. Also many countries with Buddhist belief are performing slaughters to their citizens which are not supporting their regime ideologically, however 'no' countries defending freedom of speech are talking about those and draw cartoons about Hinduism or Buddhism maybe because they 'respect!' to those religions but 'not' to Islam. I believe when a possiblity would occur to invade those countries, abuse them, or to exile the citizens of those countries from the Christ countries, then suddenly those things maybe brought into the media of those hypocritycally governed countries.

 

Can you give 'any' examples of non-Muslim countries or empires from middle ages in which Christ and Muslims lived together peacefully? There were no examples. The examples you are reminding are the Islamic Empires or Empires governed by Muslim Caliphes. For instance Ottoman Empire, Selchuklu Empire, Emevian and Abbasian Islamic Empires, The Islamic Country Hz.Muhammed has set. All non-Muslim examples were slaughtering Muslims and exiling them from their borders. For instance Spanish Empire ethnically slaughtered all Muslims who were the remnants of Endulus Emevian Empire, but remnants of Byzanthine Empire have lived under the management of Ottoman Empire peacefully for ages. Those remnants still live in Turkey and are not called with excluding terms like 'guests' they are equal citizens of Turkish Republic. I believe if this madness in Europe or other Christ countries continues, humanity shall live a second middle age.

 

"Beloved slaves of Allah"

 

"beloved slaves"

 

 

I didn't think Allah (God) was into BDSM.

 

 

And since God is often seen as a male figurehead...

 

 

 

 

According to Kuran, 'all' of humans are slaves of Allah. And the ones increasing into a higher degree are the beloved ones. Apparently you don't know any Islamic information. Also Allah is unimaginable as human mind is incapable of imagining Him, and portraying Him as a male human is a big sin. He is independent from classifications like gender and we are unable to imagine anything about His existence except some clues He gives in Kuran and He says ''Do no not draw pictures representing me or statues to worship me. Worship me in the way I taught you via Hz.Muhammed, via namaz.'' That is one of the main differences of Islam from all of the other religions.

[GreasyDogMeat]

-No, they are reliable sources. If you call sources like BBC, The Guardian, etc. as biased lop sided sources, then I am free to believe that you trust nothing apart from your confused mind and in such a case, I wish you well in your mind, which seems to believe 'nothing' at all.

 

-Those conclusions are your personal imaginations about the reasoning for what Ahmedinejat says and obviously has 'no' scientific support.

 

-You have kept Ahmedinejat responsible from your claim of murders of homosexuals in Iran, and I have said that in such a case according to your interesting logic, Obama must be responsible from the murders of KKK in the USA.

-Reliable sources eh? You call prisonplanet a reliable source?

 

-I'll repeat it since it went right over your head. Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran. Ignorance: He either has been fooled by his countries propaganda and believes the news of executed homosexuals are all lies and the west is degenerate while his people would never suffer such foul 'life choices', or he knows about it and lies to the west. Neither scenario means he has had any hand in hanging homosexuals.

 

-Again, genius, I didn't 'kept Ahmedinejad responsible for homosexual murders'. I made it clear he is either an ignorant leader or knows full well what has happened and lies to keep it a secret/make Iran look 'morally superior'. For the case of Ahmedinejad and Obama to be remotely similar, Obama would have to say that the KKK does not exist in America or to say that the KKK never lynched blacks. In either case there would be an uproar in America.

 

If you actually wanted to make a decent comparison you could compare Ahmedinejad to the KKK, as both don't look kindly on homosexuals.

[Killian Kalthorne]

According to Kuran, 'all' of humans are slaves of Allah. And the ones increasing into a higher degree are the beloved ones. Apparently you don't know any Islamic information. Also Allah is unimaginable as human mind is incapable of imagining Him, and portraying Him as a male human is a big sin. He is independent from classifications like gender and we are unable to imagine anything about His existence except some clues He gives in Kuran and He says ''Do no not draw pictures representing me or statues to worship me. Worship me in the way I taught you via Hz.Muhammed, via namaz.'' That is one of the main differences of Islam from all of the other religions.

 

HELLO! It was a joke. Sheesh, you are way too serious, Ill-man. I know a lot of about Islam, I just don't care. The average Muslim probably cares less about my beliefs than I do of theirs.

 

In other words, Ill-man. "Lighten" up.

[Humodour]

Sorry Tigranes, but 'not being offended' is not a right!

[Gorgon]

I don't accept this nonsense about freedom being binary. I don't have the freedom to murder people, but that doesn't take away my freedom to kill in self defence. I suggest that freedom of speech - despite Numbers' very good point about subjectivity - is consistent with banning extreme hate speech.

I prefer knowing what people are really about, if everyone is free to paint themselves as complete arseholes, or otherwise as the case may be, that saves me a lot of trouble. For my money any religion is fair game for cheap stunts like the Mohamed cartoons. Offended Muslims basically just need to grow thicker skin.

 

Hatemongering against individuals or specific races is different as that can genuinely cause people to live in fear, as opposed to just needing to get over themselves.

[Tigranes]

Offended Muslims basically just need to grow thicker skin.

 

Cause that's up to you/us to say, right?

 

It's not like we actually have consistent freedom of speech regime going on where the Muslims are the only dissenters, anyway. In practice, freedom of speech in most of the West adheres to the cultural and religious sensitivities of the majority in that society. i.e. what if that cartoonist drew Obama/whoever munching on a baby fetus? A lot less people would be saying "get over it".

 

Again I'm not swinging this all the way to the other extreme, I'm just trying to point out that it's not as easy as just saying the Muslims have weird wacky traditions and need to get over it.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I would.

[213374U]

i.e. what if that cartoonist drew Obama/whoever munching on a baby fetus? A lot less people would be saying "get over it".

Then it would simply not be published anywhere other than perhaps the author's website. I can guarantee that there would be no censorship proper. Hell, probably somebody has done that already, or worse.

 

You know this guy Franco? You wouldn't believe the things people draw with him as a theme, around here. Nobody other than the usual suspects is tearing their shirts over that, as far as I can tell...

[Hurlshort]

In practice, freedom of speech in most of the West adheres to the cultural and religious sensitivities of the majority in that society. i.e. what if that cartoonist drew Obama/whoever munching on a baby fetus? A lot less people would be saying "get over it".

 

That would produce pretty much zero response. Cartoonists lampoon presidents all the time.

[Tigranes]

You know, it does occur to me that I picked a pretty bad example.

[Gorgon]

Offended Muslims basically just need to grow thicker skin.

 

 

It's not like we actually have consistent freedom of speech regime going on where the Muslims are the only dissenters, anyway. In practice, freedom of speech in most of the West adheres to the cultural and religious sensitivities of the majority in that society. i.e. what if that cartoonist drew Obama/whoever munching on a baby fetus? A lot less people would be saying "get over it".

 

 

Wasn't that already on Southpark, no wait, that was Chrisopher Reeves. We don't have that many holy cows left in the West, for better or worse I suppose.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Gorgon

[I want teh kotor 3]

I'd just laugh...

[Walsingham]

Tigs, you're doing the best job you can of defending the right to be offended, but I think you're talking through your modhat. Ths is only tangentially about being offended, and far more about promoting terrorism as a response to a cartoon satirising Islam for being terrorist. Which is both monstrous in terms of the victims, and monstrously ironic.

 

Given that Illuminator's entire pitch since arriving - apart from some fascinating anecdotes about eating - has been to aver the existence of a Western plot to destroy all Muslims, and to define democracy as an abomination before God, is there really any point in arguing?

[The Illuminator]

-Reliable sources eh? You call prisonplanet a reliable source?

Please give me a list of the sources which you find reliable and I will try to make links to them via just googling about the link I have made to prisonplanet when I have enough spare time. However do not forget that every news source support usually 'one' political ideology and 'hide' the news which do not go well with their political benefits. In such cases please do not call planetscape and similar sources as non-reliable as they are not much different from cnn(which supports democrats) and fox(which supports(republicans). I doubt that you call the news sources which support a political ideology that opposes your political ideology as non-reliable sources.

 

-I'll repeat it since it went right over your head. Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran. Ignorance: He either has been fooled by his countries propaganda and believes the news of executed homosexuals are all lies and the west is degenerate while his people would never suffer such foul 'life choices', or he knows about it and lies to the west. Neither scenario means he has had any hand in hanging homosexuals.

 

-Again, genius, I didn't 'kept Ahmedinejad responsible for homosexual murders'. I made it clear he is either an ignorant leader or knows full well what has happened and lies to keep it a secret/make Iran look 'morally superior'. For the case of Ahmedinejad and Obama to be remotely similar, Obama would have to say that the KKK does not exist in America or to say that the KKK never lynched blacks. In either case there would be an uproar in America.

I think you are critisizing the Islamic rules with which Iran is ruled. As you may know, Iran is an Islamic Country which is ruled with sheriat which in general means the rules rooting from Islamic laws that are made according to Kuran. In such a case, resisting to spread homosexually or resisting to stay in a location which by law forbids homosexuals to live in is a crime. And according to Islamic laws, there are punishments to crimes like leashing or hanging. If I am not wrong, if you steal something, your hand is cut. Those are laws originating directly from religion and were being applied throughout middle age in the Islamic Empires where Muslims and Christs lived peacefully in. Gorth emphasises repeatedly that if Muslims do not like the rules of Denmark, they must leave, we cannot change our rules for them. If you support such an opinion, you have no right to ask Iran to change its laws according to your demands. I must also remind you that Israel is also a country which is heavily managed according to religious rules which Talmud dictates, but interestingly noone is complaining about this or about the other countries being governed according to religious rules maybe because no Christ country is within the imaginary borders of promised land extremist Jews believes.

All in all, again, Ahmedinejat cannot be kept responsible for the crime claims of homosexuals under the light of those.

 

 

If you actually wanted to make a decent comparison you could compare Ahmedinejad to the KKK, as both don't look kindly on homosexuals.

I think comparing Ahmedinejat with KKK is far too harsh. I hope you get rid of your obsession on Islamic rules as you seem not to have recognized the far too harsher rules other religions have applied throughout the human history and still have been applying recently.

 

Given that Illuminator's entire pitch since arriving - apart from some fascinating anecdotes about eating - has been to aver the existence of a Western plot to destroy all Muslims, and to define democracy as an abomination before God, is there really any point in arguing?

Firstly, I believe you are not accustomed to see members opposing your politicalideology on this site. This made me happy as it made me think that I am adding a wealth to the political ideologies of this site.

 

Secondly, while there is an army of millions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in the military centers of countries like Saudi Arabia, I greatly am surprised you still claim this overall invasion to be a simple plot. The reasonings for those invasions are obviously were laughable bablings and supporting such a determined military action which is almost a crusade against Muslims I believe is not a sign of objectivity. As this crusade seems to be unable to defeat a simple terrorist group but invade big Muslim countries instead.

 

Thirdly, actions of a few terrorists cannot be shown as if Islam orders their actions. They use Islam as if all of their actions are admitted according to Islam, otherwise noone may join such groups. Showing Bin laden as an Islamic intellectual who knows all of the Islamic rules word by word is only a tricky attempt to collect more soldiers to fight for USA or its allies in the Muslim countries. Because simply suicide is forbidden in Islam and such an action has no examples in Islamic history before the recent years.

 

Finally, my posts may really seem to pop up in the threads related with movies, meals or what you did today subjects apart from those political ones, but I am free to post in the threads which attracts my interest, aren't I? Moreover I am sure my image in your mind which you have formed yourself could not change even if I have posted every thread on this site, this time you could claim that illuminator is a populist so, I am not thinking of showing big efforts to persuade you about my objectivity. If you do not find me arguable, please do not make posts aboout me which are provoking me to reply.

[Raithe]

To partially cross threads here.. some quotes for the situation..

 

"If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed." - Benjamin Franklin

 

"I think anyone who has an opinion, and voices it, will offend someone." - Peter Steele

 

"Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance. " - Sam Brown

 

"People are going to say what they say. I know sometimes I say things; I offend people. " - Mike Tyson

 

"The secret to success is to offend the greatest number of people." - George Bernard Shaw

 

"We don't deliberately set out to offend. Unless we feel it's justified. " - Graham Chapman

 

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." - Salman Rushdie

 

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." - William F Buckley, Jr

 

"This is a work of fiction. All the characters in it, human and otherwise, are imaginary, excepting only certain of the fairy folk, whom it might be unwise to offend by casting doubts on their existence. Or lack thereof. " - Neil Gaiman

[Fionavar]

OT: Just a request that could we please not devolve into calling one another names? I would be grateful if we avoided this tendency, as then I actually do not have to do anything ...

 

Please return to your ongoing discussion ...

[I want teh kotor 3]

There's a reason nobody likes theocracies: they suck, just like all other totalitarian governments. Iran is a theocracy. It forces its citizens to follow an arbitrary set of oppressive laws. Ahmenidijad is indefensible, just like any other totalitarian dictator.

[Gorgon]

'Chief Moderator'

 

That's interesting, I never noticed that Fio was Capo di tutti capi in the mod squad. Figures really, I've never seen him be passionate about anything.

 

On the intarwebs that is.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Gorgon

[Gorth]

Gorth emphasises repeatedly that if Muslims do not like the rules of Denmark, they must leave, we cannot change our rules for them. If you support such an opinion, you have no right to ask Iran to change its laws according to your demands.

If you want to attribute words to me, at least do it correctly

 

What I said was:

If they don't like their hosts and don't want to respect their laws, nothing prevents them from leaving, unmolested and unharmed. That is what being a free country is all about.

I never said they must leave. They have the freedom of choice to leave if they find the place so awful.

 

Also, you seem to have taken offense at my use of the terms "guest" and "host". Let me ask you this... If somebody moves into your place, yet clearly states they don't want to be part of your household. Do you consider them family or guests? If they not only do not want to be part of your household, but wants to wreck the place, then I think "guest" is being a very generous term.

[Tigranes]

There's a reason nobody likes theocracies: they suck, just like all other totalitarian governments. Iran is a theocracy. It forces its citizens to follow an arbitrary set of oppressive laws. Ahmenidijad is indefensible, just like any other totalitarian dictator.

 

I love kotor, the world is just so simple if we'd only listen to him.

 

Tigs, you're doing the best job you can of defending the right to be offended, but I think you're talking through your modhat. Ths is only tangentially about being offended, and far more about promoting terrorism as a response to a cartoon satirising Islam for being terrorist. Which is both monstrous in terms of the victims, and monstrously ironic.

 

Given that Illuminator's entire pitch since arriving - apart from some fascinating anecdotes about eating - has been to aver the existence of a Western plot to destroy all Muslims, and to define democracy as an abomination before God, is there really any point in arguing?

 

Wals, (I must really learn how to do those quotes with people's names in them sometime ) I agree, sort of. I mean, it's farcical what it's turned into and some Muslim individuals did use this as an opportunity for ridiculously disproportionate levels of hate and outrage. I was just thinking that before all that, the original event itself didn't leave much room for argument in my view - the cartoonist should have retracted it and that would have been that, instead of waging some self-righteous extremist crusade for free speech when it wasn't warranted. I mean, there are better places to battle for free speech.

[Gorth]

I was just thinking that before all that, the original event itself didn't leave much room for argument in my view - the cartoonist should have retracted it and that would have been that, instead of waging some self-righteous extremist crusade for free speech when it wasn't warranted.

Out of curiosity, when is it warranted to stand up for free speech?

 

Ever asked yourself why they were published in the first place?

 

They were a protest against intimidation attempts against book publishers, trying to tell them what they could print and what not. A group of artists decided to protest with the tools of their trade, the pen, portraying people who commit violence in the name religion, giving an artists interpretation of how they saw it. Sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword when trying to get a message through.

 

I honestly don't believe you mean that everytime somebody threatens you, the right thing to do, is to give up your civil rights, because it might hurt the sensibilities of those who threatens you.

[GreasyDogMeat]

-I'll repeat it since it went right over your head. Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran. Ignorance: He either has been fooled by his countries propaganda and believes the news of executed homosexuals are all lies and the west is degenerate while his people would never suffer such foul 'life choices', or he knows about it and lies to the west. Neither scenario means he has had any hand in hanging homosexuals.

 

-Again, genius, I didn't 'kept Ahmedinejad responsible for homosexual murders'. I made it clear he is either an ignorant leader or knows full well what has happened and lies to keep it a secret/make Iran look 'morally superior'. For the case of Ahmedinejad and Obama to be remotely similar, Obama would have to say that the KKK does not exist in America or to say that the KKK never lynched blacks. In either case there would be an uproar in America.

I think you are critisizing the Islamic rules with which Iran is ruled. As you may know, Iran is an Islamic Country which is ruled with sheriat which in general means the rules rooting from Islamic laws that are made according to Kuran. In such a case, resisting to spread homosexually or resisting to stay in a location which by law forbids homosexuals to live in is a crime. And according to Islamic laws, there are punishments to crimes like leashing or hanging. If I am not wrong, if you steal something, your hand is cut. Those are laws originating directly from religion and were being applied throughout middle age in the Islamic Empires where Muslims and Christs lived peacefully in. Gorth emphasises repeatedly that if Muslims do not like the rules of Denmark, they must leave, we cannot change our rules for them. If you support such an opinion, you have no right to ask Iran to change its laws according to your demands. I must also remind you that Israel is also a country which is heavily managed according to religious rules which Talmud dictates, but interestingly noone is complaining about this or about the other countries being governed according to religious rules maybe because no Christ country is within the imaginary borders of promised land extremist Jews believes.

All in all, again, Ahmedinejat cannot be kept responsible for the crime claims of homosexuals under the light of those.

 

 

If you actually wanted to make a decent comparison you could compare Ahmedinejad to the KKK, as both don't look kindly on homosexuals.

I think comparing Ahmedinejat with KKK is far too harsh. I hope you get rid of your obsession on Islamic rules as you seem not to have recognized the far too harsher rules other religions have applied throughout the human history and still have been applying recently.

Thats what I'm criticizing am I? See, he didn't say 'my country has laws about homosexuals, we kill them'. He said Iran has no homosexuals and that it is a 'western phenomenon'.

 

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country, In Iran we do not have this phenomenon, I don't know who has told you that we have it," LMAO @ 'I don't know who has told you that we have it'.

 

Again, for the nth time... he is either an ignorant mouth piece, or he lies about his countries disgusting practices and deserves a million middle fingers from a million women.

 

Also, it is rather humerous that you come back with the 'OH, lots of religions and goverments have done disgusting things in the past, so whats the big deal if Iran does it right now?'. Maybe you have some example that comes close in America... besides conspiracy theories about the lunar landing being faked and NY jews being responsible for 9-11.

[Tigranes]

Ever asked yourself why they were published in the first place?

 

They were a protest against intimidation attempts against book publishers, trying to tell them what they could print and what not. A group of artists decided to protest with the tools of their trade, the pen, portraying people who commit violence in the name religion, giving an artists interpretation of how they saw it. Sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword when trying to get a message through.

 

Huh. If I ever knew about this part I must have forgotten it, what with the protracted uproar. I stand corrected, then.

[Gorth]

Huh. If I ever knew about this part I must have forgotten it, what with the protracted uproar. I stand corrected, then.

Unfortunately, that is the way the world works sometimes. People remember the emotionally charged debates, the insults, the many people killed, the bombings, the embassy burnings, the reprints, eventually forgetting the lesson of the why it happened in the first place

 

Today it has become some kind of thing that is being fought over for its perceived symbolic values, rather than what it originally was about, everybody projecting their own bias into the debate, seing only that aspect of it that suits their preconceptions.

[Tigranes]

Sounds like one of our forum threads.