Muslims threaten to kill South Park creators

[Críostóir]

Did you know that the restriction on depicting Mohammad is only in force among Sunni Moslems? Shi'ites are OK with respectful depictions. Unfortunately, the Shi'ites already abhor al Qaeda, so getting them on board is no help.

Kulindahr, don't mess with Mecca. True, it's in Saudi Arabia, one of the most detestable countries on Earth; true, they don't let non-Moslems even go there. But it is one of the most peaceful places on the planet. As far as I know, it's the only truly race-blind place (that being the fact that turned Malcolm X from an ally of the racist Nation of Islam to someone they wanted dead). If you're on Haaj, that's all they need to know about you; after they know that, you're a holy pilgrim and they treat you as such, no matter how strange you may look to them.

Also, there is no "the Muslims," any more than there's a "the Christians." Moslems vary all over the map, and many of the most important differences are cultural, not religious. Sunni Moslems in Albania are more different from Sunnis in Iraq than the latter are from their Shi'ite neighbors.

I think our goal should be to make it possible for more peaceful Moslems to be heard. As far as I can tell, the problem isn't that they don't speak out, but that they aren't considered news by the Western MSM. So one Islamist group threatens the South Park guys, a hundred mosques denounce this threat as unIslamic, and you hear the former but not the latter.

 

[Kulindahr]

Also, there is no "the Muslims," any more than there's a "the Christians." Moslems vary all over the map, and many of the most important differences are cultural, not religious. Sunni Moslems in Albania are more different from Sunnis in Iraq than the latter are from their Shi'ite neighbors.

The Muslim world right now is sort of what the Christian world was like before Rome got a stick up its ass and decided to own everything. Let's hope none of these ayatollahs manage to set themselves up as a Muslim Pope.

So in a way they're not ripe for anything like the Reformation, but they could definitely use a Ghandi.

How about a half million peaceful Muslims doing a sit-in around their sacred rock and refusing to leave until Al-Qaeda lays down its arms?

I think our goal should be to make it possible for more peaceful Moslems to be heard. As far as I can tell, the problem isn't that they don't speak out, but that they aren't considered news by the Western MSM. So one Islamist group threatens the South Park guys, a hundred mosques denounce this threat as unIslamic, and you hear the former but not the latter.

Yes, and because we don't hear the latter, neither do most Muslims.

Some peaceful Muslim with a few billion in his pocket ought to finance and launch a trio of latest-tech communications satellites which would orbit slowly above the Clarke orbit, always in communication with each other, always in communication with ground stations, to broadcast what peaceful Muslims have to say, 24/7.

As for the "no images!" morons, I say get some drones, give them a cargo of little cutouts of the Prophet in all sorts of activities (like screwing his little girl) that are historically accurate, with the statements about the activity printed on the back, and drop a few million of them across Sunni territory. Call it Operation Sunn-shine".

 

[Críostóir]

Whereas Christians are safe from such information about their founder (Saint Paul*), because there aren't ANY reliable historical records about him.
____
*Jesus taught a revolutionary communism that would have utterly overturned the social order had it been widely adopted; Paul called his religion by the same name, but corrupted it into a system that supported the social order and all its pomps. He was the real founder of modern Christianity.

 

[Críostóir]

Interesting assertions in your sig. Communism is a form of government. Jesus didn't teach communism as he didn't teach a form of government. In fact, He expected His followers to co-exist within every nation regardless of it's form of government.

No, communism is not a form of government. It's an economic system where all property is held in common and administered collectively for the common good (that is, communally). If you read Acts, you will note that this is precisely what the Apostles did, and how the early Christian community behaved. Jesus taught the (voluntary) redistribution of property ("sell your possessions and give to the poor").

No, Jesus was not a Marxist. He didn't preach Workers of the World, Unite! or seize the means of prodution, or class struggle. Certainly he would never have advocated for a system like the one that arose in the Soviet Union (but then, neither would Marx). But the term 'communism' predates Marx.

Basically, Jesus advocated communism, not Communism.

In addition, I think you have a source-confusion error. If you find the bits where Christians are directed to cooperate with whatever government they're under, overwhelmingly they come from Paul (who was trying to make Christianity support good old institutions like slavery). Jesus overturns the social order over and over, notably in the Temple, at the well with the Samaritan woman, and when he prevents the stoning of the adulteress.

He does say "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's," but remember, he's just asked whose picture is on that coin! He's saying that money belongs to Caesar, being made in his image, and that people belong to God, being made in His. Rejecting money is itself a step toward ideal communism.

 

[Kulindahr]

Interesting assertions in your sig. Communism is a form of government. Jesus didn't teach communism as he didn't teach a form of government. In fact, He expected His followers to co-exist within every nation regardless of it's form of government.

Actually communism is an economic system. Use Jesus' parables, you can defend capitalism quite easily; use other parts, you can make a case for communism. He didn't teach any economic system at all, or governmental.

But He definitely wouldn't be threatening anyone over making silly pictures of Him.

 

[Kulindahr]

Basically, Jesus advocated communism, not Communism.
....
He does say "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's," but remember, he's just asked whose picture is on that coin! He's saying that money belongs to Caesar, being made in his image, and that people belong to God, being made in His. Rejecting money is itself a step toward ideal communism.

Jesus' teaching is full of "image theology". That's what finally (well, early Christians figured it out, but it fell by the wayside) drove out Paul's apparent tolerance of slavery: that the slave, too, is in the image of God, and to put the image of God in subjection is blasphemy.

If the right wing would realize the image theology inherent in the God/Caesar situation, and applied it to marriage, they'd come hat in hand asking the government to choose a neutral term that everyone could use, and leave "marriage" as a non-governmental religious/personal matter -- because the word is used for two different things, and many of their followers are bright enough to figure that out, and... marriage[gov] is in the image of Caesar, so to speak, so (1) why should they care what Caesar decides it it and (2) why should they even want to participate?

The Muslims involved here have no grasp at all of image theology, or they'd recall that long before Jesus or Mohammed God, in a book they claim to accept, said "You shall not murder" because man is made in God's image, so you don't go around killing.

From there it's an easy step to see that any Muslim who kills someone who has not directly attacked him or his is a blasphemer against Allah.

 

[Mariatenebre]

The stupid bigotry in this thread appalls me.

So, of course, does the stupidity of these jihadists, but that goes without saying.

I don't watch South Park (it just annoys me), but I understand the guy in the bear suit wasn't Mohammad (peace be upon him) at all, but Santa Claus, who stepped in because Mohammad shouldn't be depicted. If that's what happened, it's very clever: it's funny, it mocks the tradition of never showing Mohammad without mocking Mohammad himself...and it actually follows the tradition WHILE mocking it!

Those of you sitting here saying you hate Muslims or that Islam is just evil: would I be justified in saying the same thing about Christianity because of the actions of Eric Rudolph? He's the wacko fringe of Christianity, just as the jihadist losers who threatened the South Park team are the wacko fringe of Islam.

Christianity and Islam both are evil and vile religions meant to be hated but Islam is far worse. By their doctrines you would be thrown off of large buildings or stones. The religion is built on the oppression of women, gays and non believers and countless blood of said people is spilt. To which you people trying to defend this cult are guilty because of your sanctioning of this religion you support the death and discrimination. of women, apostates, non believers, homosexuals and countless others.

Did you know that the restriction on depicting Mohammad is only in force among Sunni Moslems? Shi'ites are OK with respectful depictions. Unfortunately, the Shi'ites already abhor al Qaeda, so getting them on board is no help.

Kulindahr, don't mess with Mecca. True, it's in Saudi Arabia, one of the most detestable countries on Earth; true, they don't let non-Moslems even go there. But it is one of the most peaceful places on the planet. As far as I know, it's the only truly race-blind place (that being the fact that turned Malcolm X from an ally of the racist Nation of Islam to someone they wanted dead). If you're on Haaj, that's all they need to know about you; after they know that, you're a holy pilgrim and they treat you as such, no matter how strange you may look to them.

Also, there is no "the Muslims," any more than there's a "the Christians." Moslems vary all over the map, and many of the most important differences are cultural, not religious. Sunni Moslems in Albania are more different from Sunnis in Iraq than the latter are from their Shi'ite neighbors.

I think our goal should be to make it possible for more peaceful Moslems to be heard. As far as I can tell, the problem isn't that they don't speak out, but that they aren't considered news by the Western MSM. So one Islamist group threatens the South Park guys, a hundred mosques denounce this threat as unIslamic, and you hear the former but not the latter.

The only race blind place in the world! Because of Islam countless black people are butchered in their own countries. Muhammed even said in the hadith that to have a dream about a black woman is a bad omen. Also blacks are called such slur words as Eve's monkey and abeed. Blacks have far more rights and race blindness in the West then anywhere in the Middle East. Also you lie once again most Muslims do not live in peace and regularly commit atrocities. By your logic since most Nazis did not fight in the war Nazism is peacable. Next I have heard no Mosque denounce this threat as unIslamic and in the hadith it is said that if a person commits a criminal offense and blasphemeing their evil prophet is one then irregardless of what the societies laws are they have the freedom to bring that person to justice.

 

[Kulindahr]

Christianity and Islam both are evil and vile religions meant to be hated but Islam is far worse. By their doctrines you would be thrown off of large buildings or stones. The religion is built on the oppression of women, gays and non believers and countless blood of said people is spilt. To which you people trying to defend this cult are guilty because of your sanctioning of this religion you support the death and discrimination. of women, apostates, non believers, homosexuals and countless others.

Ah, yes, evil Christianity which says all men are equally God's children, which says to love one another, turn the other cheek, do good to those who wrong you, pray for those who persecute you, take care of widows and orphans, love your neighbor as yourself, lay down your life for a friend, do good to all men, regard others as more important than yourself, don't turn away someone needing hospitality, and all those vile, wicked things.

 

[Críostóir]

The only race blind place in the world! Because of Islam countless black people are butchered in their own countries. Muhammed even said in the hadith that to have a dream about a black woman is a bad omen. Also blacks are called such slur words as Eve's monkey and abeed. Blacks have far more rights and race blindness in the West then anywhere in the Middle East. Also you lie once again most Muslims do not live in peace and regularly commit atrocities. By your logic since most Nazis did not fight in the war Nazism is peacable. Next I have heard no Mosque denounce this threat as unIslamic and in the hadith it is said that if a person commits a criminal offense and blasphemeing their evil prophet is one then irregardless of what the societies laws are they have the freedom to bring that person to justice.

All this ranting is irrelevant. I said MECCA is the only race-blind place in the world, and clearly indicated that I meant for pilgrims on Haaj. Tell me of people being slaughtered, beaten, or so much as harassed IN MECCA DURING THE HAAJ, and I will examine your evidence; til then you can go back and read what I actually wrote--or, of course, you could just shut the hell up.

You have heard no Mosque denounce this threat as unIslamic? Do you make a habit of listening to what's said in Mosques? If not, how would you hear it? You obviously have no Moslem friends.

And also, you just invoked Godwin's Law. You lose.

And btw, among civilized people it's considered polite not to jump right to calling someone a liar when you think something they've said is untrue. I'm telling you this because word apparently hasn't trickled down to the primordial ooze in which you obviously live.

 

[Mariatenebre]

All this ranting is irrelevant. I said MECCA is the only race-blind place in the world, and clearly indicated that I meant for pilgrims on Haaj. Tell me of people being slaughtered, beaten, or so much as harassed IN MECCA DURING THE HAAJ, and I will examine your evidence; til then you can go back and read what I actually wrote--or, of course, you could just shut the hell up.

You have heard no Mosque denounce this threat as unIslamic? Do you make a habit of listening to what's said in Mosques? If not, how would you hear it? You obviously have no Moslem friends.

And also, you just invoked Godwin's Law. You lose.

And btw, among civilized people it's considered polite not to jump right to calling someone a liar when you think something they've said is untrue. I'm telling you this because word apparently hasn't trickled down to the primordial ooze in which you obviously live.

To which you are wrong Muslims as I have said have racism in their religion and the majority of these people hate Westereners. Next the hajj makes no difference many religions have days of holiness where no violence is allowed and I am sure there were incidents where something bad happened. The point is that many people on the hajj do evil things in their own life.

On the Mosques I know what is the Orthodox Islamic belief and I know that the majority of Mosques adhear to this and that includes death of blasphemers. Your so called Muslim friend's opinions on this do not matter as the moderates do not reflect the mainstream beliefs of the religion. Plus your "friends" might as many Muslims do practise Taquiyya. Also do your "friends" even know you are gay because the Quran and Hadith are clear on the punishment of homosexuals.

On Godwin's Law this law states that mentioning of comparsion of a group or a person to Nazis would lengthen the conversation it does not say whether the comparison is valid. However your view that true Islam is not violent is both false and could easily be said to be the No True Scotsman falicy, so you loose.

Next you are a liar because you defend a miserable barbaric cult based on Bronze age values, sexism, homophobia and mal treatement of non believers. You should get your head out of your cultural relativist suicidal Liberal nonsense and see the facts. It pisses me off at how you people have no problem criticizeing Christianity yet when someone criticzies Islam for its atrocities you people shit bricks.

 

[Kulindahr]

Next you are a liar because you defend a miserable barbaric cult based on Bronze age values, sexism, homophobia and mal treatement of non believers. You should get your head out of your cultural relativist suicidal Liberal nonsense and see the facts. It pisses me off at how you people have no problem criticizeing Christianity yet when someone criticzies Islam for its atrocities you people shit bricks.

Now we have the labeling and over-generalization fallacies.

Just who, pray tell, are "you people"?

 

[Mariatenebre]

Now we have the labeling and over-generalization fallacies.

Just who, pray tell, are "you people"?

You people refers to the cultural relativist Liberals who have no problem criticizing Christianity but when someone does the same to Islam they shit bricks. Also this is not labelling or over generalization but the facts on the nature on this barbaric religion.

 

[Kulindahr]

I would further discredit the communal notion by saying at no point did Jesus tell His followers to leave their lives and jobs, save the Apostles to whom He was giving specific jobs.

It should also be noted that Paul's supposed support of slavery was less a support and more an encouragement to slaves that regardless of one's situation in life, they can serve God.

Leaving jobs isn't a requirement for communal living. That doesn't have to be geographic -- in the book of Acts it says "they had all things in common", but it doesn't say they all moved to one place.

And the Apostles continued to practice their occupations -- Paul made tents, and even almost brags about it.

On slavery, yes -- Paul accepted that it existed, and gave instructions on living with it. Nowhere does he state any approval.

 

[Kulindahr]

You people refers to the cultural relativist Liberals who have no problem criticizing Christianity but when someone does the same to Islam they shit bricks. Also this is not labelling or over generalization but the facts on the nature on this barbaric religion.

Your use was a generalization, because you applied it to folks whose positions on those topics you don't know -- you assumed. Since you applied it without knowing, that's labeling.

Besides that, saying "you people" is sloppy. It gives other readers no indication of what you're talking about, except maybe that you're painting yourself as superior and insulting someone. If you mean "cultural relativist Liberals", then say so, and if that's too long to use over and over, come up with a short hand, like maybe CulRelLibs. A number of people on here have invented such shorthand, and it works well -- ReligioPubicans is one I came up with, as a short way of saying "Religiously small-minded, bigoted Republicans"; it has the advantage of being easily interpreted.

With that in mind, "CultRelvLibs" might work, because it can be figured out, and the first four letters give the sense of irrationally clinging to a pattern of thought with which your usage seems imbued.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Your use was a generalization, because you applied it to folks whose positions on those topics you don't know -- you assumed. Since you applied it without knowing, that's labeling.

Besides that, saying "you people" is sloppy. It gives other readers no indication of what you're talking about, except maybe that you're painting yourself as superior and insulting someone. If you mean "cultural relativist Liberals", then say so, and if that's too long to use over and over, come up with a short hand, like maybe CulRelLibs. A number of people on here have invented such shorthand, and it works well -- ReligioPubicans is one I came up with, as a short way of saying "Religiously small-minded, bigoted Republicans"; it has the advantage of being easily interpreted.

With that in mind, "CultRelvLibs" might work, because it can be figured out, and the first four letters give the sense of irrationally clinging to a pattern of thought with which your usage seems imbued.

Thanks I'll keep that in mind though I though the individuals whom my ire was directed to was implied.

 

[Críostóir]

On slavery, yes -- Paul accepted that it existed, and gave instructions on living with it. Nowhere does he state any approval.

"Slaves, stay with your masters" always struck me as one of those "don't disrupt the social order" things. Paul was pro-status-quo, which Jesus wasn't.

 

[Kulindahr]

"Slaves, stay with your masters" always struck me as one of those "don't disrupt the social order" things. Paul was pro-status-quo, which Jesus wasn't.

Of course Paul would explain it as a testimony that Jesus' kingdom wasn't of this world, or some such thing. Paul was perfectly willing to break the law sometimes (e.g. he broke at least three when he got lowered by a basket to get out of the walls of a city at night), but at other times seemed like a wallflower. My guess has tended toward the possibility that as an intellectual he was more interested in the power of words as the Word, and sort of neglected the power of action as the Word. I see that where he was incredibly eloquent about the Incarnation, showing the incredible intellectual depth of Christianity, but not very good at showing people the incredible consequences of the Incarnation -- for example, as some Christians in the following generations grasped quite readily (and I've incorporated into a certain story), slavery is in a very real sense blasphemy: Jesus' death didn't just purchase souls, it purchased whole human beings, thereby lifting the status as image of God to a higher level, so to claim to own other human beings becomes a claim to have a lien on the Image of God.

 

[Críostóir]

Of course Paul would explain it as a testimony that Jesus' kingdom wasn't of this world, or some such thing. Paul was perfectly willing to break the law sometimes (e.g. he broke at least three when he got lowered by a basket to get out of the walls of a city at night), but at other times seemed like a wallflower. My guess has tended toward the possibility that as an intellectual he was more interested in the power of words as the Word, and sort of neglected the power of action as the Word. I see that where he was incredibly eloquent about the Incarnation, showing the incredible intellectual depth of Christianity, but not very good at showing people the incredible consequences of the Incarnation -- for example, as some Christians in the following generations grasped quite readily (and I've incorporated into a certain story), slavery is in a very real sense blasphemy: Jesus' death didn't just purchase souls, it purchased whole human beings, thereby lifting the status as image of God to a higher level, so to claim to own other human beings becomes a claim to have a lien on the Image of God.

That's what I mean by saying Paul wasn't one to overthrow the social order (even when it included blasphemous institutions like slavery).