Muslims protest a positive depiction of their Prophet

[Paradigne]

Let us contrast this with Saudi Arabian textbooks . The King of Saudi Arabia said that he would be making a grassroots level effort to weed out intolerance from textbooks . After this effort was made , here are the results ( the following are excerpts which are taken from the "clean" textbooks ) :



Need I say any more ?

And THAT ladies and gentlemen is why we have that little line in the first ammendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

 

[Elrohir]

Christians and Jews have also invovled themselves in atrocities, need I bring up the genocide against the Canaanites, the attempted butchering of Jerusalem during the crusades, on the first crusades the knights resorted to canabalising bodies inlcuding women and children after battles due to starvation, the middle ages is a swage of racism attempted genocide against the jews and deep rooted religous conflict. In comparison Muslim history is positively tame, so let's put it in perspective a bit.

Muslim history "positively tame", that's a good one Sidhe! That's really funny!

All joking aside, I have two words for you: Banu Qurayza. They're the Jewish clan that lived in Medina, that Mohammed had all the men's heads cut off, the children sold as slaves, and the women given away as "wives" to his followers to be raped. (He kept the clan leader's wife for himself) Before and after these atrocious events, Muslim history is largely one group of bloody conquests after another, until enough Christians in the West, or Hindu's in the East pulled together long enough to beat them back.

The history of Islam is at least as bloody as the worst Judaism or Christianity has to offer, in my opinion, much worse, especially as the bloodiest acts of Christianity were often responses to earlier, often bloodier, attacks. Even the Crusades were retaliation for Muslim conquests of Jerusalem, and the Holy Land.

And just so you know, I wouldn't talk about the "genocide of the Canaanites" in the view of an atrocity unless you know a lot about them. They weren't nice guys; they sacrificed children by burning them alive, among other things. If anyone deserved to be wiped out, it was them.

 

[HannibalBarka]

bla bla bla All joking aside, I have two words for you: Banu Qurayza. They're the Jewish clan that lived in Medina, bla bla

BS

For those who are intersted, you can read the story:

http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml

:
The history of Islam is at least as bloody as the worst Judaism or Christianity has to offer, in my opinion, much worse, especially as the bloodiest acts of Christianity were often responses to earlier, often bloodier, attacks. Even the Crusades were retaliation for Muslim conquests of Jerusalem, and the Holy Land.

Well Christians and Jews were really poor warriors
So when the Crusaders burnt thousands of jews in Europe and sacked Constantinople, the Christian Capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, and slaughtered and raped thousands of its christian inhabitants, it was a retaliation for Muslim conquests of Jerusalem, and the Holy Land

And just so you know, I wouldn't talk about the "genocide of the Canaanites" in the view of an atrocity unless you know a lot about them. They weren't nice guys; they sacrificed children by burning them alive, among other things. If anyone deserved to be wiped out, it was them.

When the wonderfull people who committed genocide on those Canaanites, count as their Patriarch a guy who was willing to slaughter his own kid just to please his sychotic God. Do you think they also deserve to be wiped out like the Canaanites ?

 

[Elrohir]

Hannibal Barka, I would very much appreciate it if you wouldn't insert your own little "enhancements" inside the quote boxes where my screenname is shown. It is misleading, and I would like you to edit all those little additions out; that is putting words in my mouth.

Well Christians and Jews were really poor warriors
So when the Crusaders burnt thousands of jews in Europe and sacked Constantinople, the Christian Capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, and slaughtered and raped thousands of its christian inhabitants, it was a retaliation for Muslim conquests of Jerusalem, and the Holy Land

I never said they were perfect; just that they were, in general, much less bloody conquests than the Muslim conquests. If you heard him tell it, they conquered their empire by walking around and handing out teddy bears and kissing babies.

Where the wonderfull people who committed genocide on those Canaanites, count as their Patriarch a guy who was willing to slaughter his own kid just to please his God. Do you think they also eserve to be wiped out like the Canaanites ?

There is a difference between "willing do" and "did tens of thousands of times". It's a rather simple difference, so I'm surpsied you didn't see it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think the real reason we shouldn't count the Canaanites is the complete lack of archaeological evidence that they were actually wiped out. The entire Book of Joshua does strike me as more legend than historical fact.

And God wasn't psychotic for wanting Abraham to sacrifice His son, He just needed to know how much Abraham trusted Him.

 

[Sidhe]

The history of Islam is at least as bloody as the worst Judaism or Christianity has to offer, in my opinion, much worse, especially as the bloodiest acts of Christianity were often responses to earlier, often bloodier, attacks. Even the Crusades were retaliation for Muslim conquests of Jerusalem, and the Holy Land.

And just so you know, I wouldn't talk about the "genocide of the Canaanites" in the view of an atrocity unless you know a lot about them. They weren't nice guys; they sacrificed children by burning them alive, among other things. If anyone deserved to be wiped out, it was them.

Yes of course they did, and this isn't war time propoganda at all, do you have a link that isn't a quote from Jeramiah?

Religous wars 3rd biggest killer of people in Europe, could arguably considered the biggest killer if you take note of the fact that religous wars brought plague and famine to Europe.

If you honestly and truly believe that the Muslim world has a longer more unmitigated wholesale slew of religous wars than us you are living in a world of delusion. I don't have time to fish out all the wars started by the pope against anti christs or the 13 crusades' catalogue of atrocities including the German crusade against Jews, or the war between France and England instigated by the Church as a demand of their entitlement to French lands and wealth. The list is patently endless. No offense Elrohir but you need ot swat up on European history alot if you think it compares to Muslim violence or if it's even in the same ball park, you tend to forget that the Catholics had a deep interest in solidifying there power base thorugh war, they instigated many wars to gain lands riches and to expunge so called heretics, it's basically a 1000AD to 1800AD bloodbath, check it out.

 

[Truronian]

Let us contrast this with Saudi Arabian textbooks . The King of Saudi Arabia said that he would be making a grassroots level effort to weed out intolerance from textbooks . After this effort was made , here are the results ( the following are excerpts which are taken from the "clean" textbooks ) :

Need I say any more ?

Yes. Exactly where did you obtain this book?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

To be fair, there has never been a single war that was fought entirely over religion. The Crusades were dealing with the access of European pilgrims to the Holy Land, which had financial implications. The Thirty Years War had political as well as religious issues. And so on. Anyways, I think it is silly to argue over who has a higher body count.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yes. Exactly where did you obtain this book?

The Washington Times (I think) did an article on it. Sorry, no link, but I have read the article as well; my roommate had a copy of it.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Eh yeah right. Yesterday while I was walking back home, I saw a man holding his 4 years old kid with his left hand, and holding a knife in his right hand. So I asked him "what are you doing brother?"
He replied "Oh not much, I was just about to slaughter the kid"
So I asked: "why? you don't have any thing for dinner?"
He replied "Euh no, I ordered a pizza already. It is just that the Lord asked me to do so; he wannna see how far he can trust me"
So I said "Ah OK, that's all? Sorry, I thought you were one of those bloody Canaanite. Good night than, and drop some water to clean please"

 

[Truronian]

The Washington Times (I think) did an article on it. Sorry, no link, but I have read the article as well; my roommate had a copy of it.

Ok. I very doubtful though. I have a freind who was schooled in Saudi Arabia, and he claims the education was surprisingly liberal (although not without its Muslim hat-nodding).

EDIT: Doubtful of the Washington Post, that is.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@Hannibal: Well, if one is willing to accept that the incident even happened at all, remember that a) Abraham had actually spoken directly to God before, so there was no doubt of his existence and b) Isaac was actually in his 30's, not a child; he would have had to agree with it. Just saying is all.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Well, I don't see anything bad on that quote I have used for my signature. It is just very accurate description of Islam in its pure form.

Interesting.
So how many times do you have to do a thing for it becoming a habit?

 

[Sidhe]

To be fair, there has never been a single war that was fought entirely over religion. The Crusades were dealing with the access of European pilgrims to the Holy Land, which had financial implications. The Thirty Years War had political as well as religious issues. And so on. Anyways, I think it is silly to argue over who has a higher body count.

The Muslim lands wars weren't totally about religion, nothing ever is, it's usually politics and religion in good measure with a sprinkle of intolerance thrown in.

However since Elrohir wants to do a body count, then the Christian body count would overwhelmingly top the scales one way.

 

[Ellipsis Jones]

It seems a bit idiotic that a book which seeks to educate children about the founder of Islam should be so mistaken as to not observe the common understanding that the Prophet Mohammed should not be depicted pictorially. As such, I think it makes complete sense for the book with its illustration to be pulled. But I also think that calling for their arrest is going a bit too far.

I don't think any such "common understanding" exists.

Wikipedia:

Some Muslims believe that such hadith forbid all pictorial representation. Other Muslims believe that there is nothing wrong with pictures in general; it is only idolatry that is condemned. They believe that pictures of Muhammad are allowable if they are illustrations to encourage faith and practice, not idols for worship.

See also the Mohammed Image Archive, which is chock full of representations of Mohammed produced by muslim artists.

I don't think this has much of anything to do with religious sensitivity. This fellow Owaisi is a politician, and from what I can tell, a rather foul demagogue as well. Let's have another look at what he has to say:

MIM MLA Akbaruddin Owaisi said this episode was a conspiracy to hurt Muslims . "An international agency has been working to provoke and disturb Muslims .

A conspiracy by an international agency to hurt, provoke, and disturb Muslims. The man is unhinged. I did a quick google for "Arkbird Publications," and it turns out they're based in India, so the "international agency" this guy is alluding to is not the book's publisher. I wonder who he could mean.

 

[aneeshm]

A conspiracy by an international agency to hurt, provoke, and disturb Muslims. The man is unhinged. I did a quick google for "Arkbird Publications," and it turns out they're based in India, so the "international agency" this guy is alluding to is not the book's publisher. I wonder who he could mean.

And this man is a MLA , with real political power , and he got this power because he was voted to power by his Muslim vote-base . The Muslims of India really need access to real education - if only the Mullahs would allow it .

 

[aneeshm]

Yes. Exactly where did you obtain this book?

I already posted the link - but for your benefit , I will post it again : Link .

 

[Winner]

Interesting.
So how many times do you have to do a thing for it becoming a habit?

Your point is...?

 

[Truronian]

I already posted the link - but for your benefit , I will post it again : Link .

Thanks. I'm still skeptical about this article, but I won't delve into that in this thread.

As for the OP, I'd say withdrawal of the books is perfectly valid, an arrest, however, is not.

 

[Elrohir]

Yes of course they did, and this isn't war time propoganda at all, do you have a link that isn't a quote from Jeramiah?

Here you go. The pagan god Moloch was worshipped in Carthage, and Canaan before the Israelites came out of Egypt.

Besides, the idea that they simply made it up as "war-time propaganda" is ridiculous. The Israelites were capturing their cities, which included their temples. Do you really think the priests would tell them one thing, when it could obviously be proven wrong by examining one of the temples to Moloch? If there were no human sacrifices, then the Israelites would have known this; trying to pass such a thing off would be too difficult.

Religous wars 3rd biggest killer of people in Europe, could arguably considered the biggest killer if you take note of the fact that religous wars brought plague and famine to Europe.

Link? And as Eran pointed out, religion might have been the starting issue in some of those wars, but there were many other factors as well. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't religious wars that brought the plague to Europe, it was traders from Asia and poor hygeine.

If you honestly and truly believe that the Muslim world has a longer more unmitigated wholesale slew of religous wars than us you are living in a world of delusion. I don't have time to fish out all the wars started by the pope against anti christs or the 13 crusades' catalogue of atrocities including the German crusade against Jews, or the war between France and England instigated by the Church as a demand of their entitlement to French lands and wealth. The list is patently endless. No offense Elrohir but you need ot swat up on European history alot if you think it compares to Muslim violence or if it's even in the same ball park, you tend to forget that the Catholics had a deep interest in solidifying there power base thorugh war, they instigated many wars to gain lands riches and to expunge so called heretics, it's basically a 1000AD to 1800AD bloodbath, check it out.

And the Muslim history is basically a 600 AD to the present day bloodbath. Many in the present day have renounced violence, but many have not, and historically violence has been the norm, rather than the exception.

I'm not saying Christianity had a pure and bloodless history - far from it. I have no problem admitting that many atrocities were committed by Christians, in the Name of Christ. But that hardly excuses or wipes away the bloody and violent history of Islam, either, which you seem to be doing quite cheerfully.