Slick better leave the horn at home, Mooslims hate music too.
Posted on 08/01/2006 3:52:31 AM PDT by Panerai
Sarajevo • Bosnian Islamic leaders voiced anger yesterday after a local television station aired an episode of the popular US cartoon South Park depicting Prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him).
“The broadcast (of the cartoon) is unacceptable and we condemn it and consider it to be a kind of provocation,” Enes Ljevakovic, head of a Bosnian Islamic council, said.
“According to Islamic tradition, the presentation of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) or any other prophet is unacceptable ... even if their presentation is not sarcastic but in positive light,” Ljevakovic said.
“The cartoon was even censored in the United States ... and that is what the local Bosnian television station should have done as well,” he added.
OBN defended its decision to air the show, saying the cartoon presented prophets in a positive light that could be considered as a lesson in morality.
Some 40 percent of Bosnia’s 3.8 million inhabitants are Muslims. Orthodox Christian Serbs represent about 31 percent, while Roman Catholic Croats account for around 10 per cent.
There. I fixed it.
Slick better leave the horn at home, Mooslims hate music too.
Hahahaha! You need to read Robert Spencer's Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades before you make yourself look even less informed about Islam's past.
It shouldn't have been censored here.
Destroying history in South America was hardly comparable to the actions and oppression of the radical Islamists. Not forgetting the "civilizations" of the ruthless and murderous Incans, Aztecs and other bloodthirsty groups terrorizing their unfortunate citizens. Rewriting history or contorting it doesn't change it, by the way, what is the "Spanish Church"?
Ignignot says: "I hope you can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can."
"Prophet Mohammed (Police Be Upon Him)."
Evokes a nice mental image.
That's REALLY sad when you think about it.
They are joyous at American and Israeli deaths. The are hateful bigots (on a mission).
If the human sacrifices were willing, why does the artwork depict people being held down with less than pleasant expressions on their faces? I strongly urge you to read Lawrence Keeley's book War Before Civilization where he provides examples of severe academic bias against viewing ancient cultures as violent or murderous.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct and those human sacrifices went willingly to their deaths. How does that make it acceptable? If one applies the logic that how the victim perceives their abuse determines whether it is good or bad, women who are abused by their husbands yet stay with them because they love them are not really being abused because the victim wants to be there, right? The shopkeeper who pays "protection" money to the Mafia and doesn't report it to the police isn't being extorted because he wants to pay the money, right?
And really, can you say that given the time, their religion wouldn't have evolved like Catholizism did?
I can't say with certainty but can say with some confidence that the cultures supported by those religious beliefs would never have evolved like Catholicism did because, at it's core, Christianity has a message of forgiveness and love while those religions, at their core, had a message of fatalism and death. Going back in the direction of the Moche was more likely.
Anyway, to deliberately blot out an entire culture is still a unique historical crime...dhimmitude looks rather fair compared to that.
During WW2, the allies did their best to blot out the entire culture of the Nazi Fascists (and it was, indeed, a distinct culture with it's own styles of art, literature, and so on). Do you shed a tear for the distruction of the Nazis and are you bothered by the fact that expressing certain elements of Nazi culture is actually illegal in Germany? Would the Nazis have been more acceptable if they convinced the Jews to march willingly to their death by telling them there was honor in it? Do you shed a tear for the loss of the Soviet culture, again with it's own distinctive artwork, music, and scientific achievements? Should we have endured millions of more deaths to keep those societies running in perpetuity rather than let them be blotted out?
I'm sorry but some cultures deserve to be blotted out. If you want to shed a tear over the loss of their art and literature that was destroyed rather than studied, you might have an argument. But the world is a better place without priests ripping the hearts out of people because they think it will make the Sun rise, just like the world is a better place without the Nazis.
I'm sorry but all cultures are not equal and are not worth preserving. And I'm afraid you are inflicted with the strange fetish for a static world that we also see in environmentalists. The world changes, whether Evil Europeans change it or not. The Moche rose and fell without a single European hand getting involved. So did the Olmecs and Mayan civilizations. And far from purposeful extermination, a lot of the distruction was done by European diseases, which weren't killing in the name of the Church.
"Dirka, dirka, Muhammad Jihad!"
Thank you for that post. It is what I meant to write at the end of my post.
Bullshiite. Er, uh, Bullsunni.
I've got a book on Mohammad by a Turkish Sunni/Sufi Muslim that reproduces literally dozens of paintings, from various historic periods, that show The Prophet . Granted that some of them have the face veiled or otherwise obscured, but many others show the face clearly. These can be found in museums in the Islamic world.
This "can't draw The Prophet" stuff is a blatant lie, at least insofar as being a universal Islamic prohibition. I'm constantly amazed at how much of the Western press have bought into this crap. In reality it's a pseudo rule to be used only against infidels and dhimmis, either as a means to intimidate them or an excuse to attack them.
You have missed a great deal of history, the Spanish Church learned its cruelity from the Towelist Moose-limbs. Dolt!
While I don't totally agree with Schweinhund, I agree with his general point. Throughout the dark ages Christianity was used as a tool for oppression. The fact that it was Christianity is inconsequential; it could have been any religion. The crusades were largely a chance for the Pope and the Kings and Princes of the day to export their domestic political problems (i.e. poor people--sound like modern Mexico anyone?) to a far away land while they maintained despotic contol over their Principalities. Few of the population could read latin, and since the bible only existed in latin, few knew anything about Christianity. This left those in charge to twist Christianity to their pervierse advantage.
This situation has important paralelles with today's Islam. Religious fevor is used in the Arab world today as a cover for domestic problems: Pissed off about being poor?--blame the Jews and Americans (not the dictators and Imams who are using the nations oil money to bolster their regimes instead of economic reform)! Europes imagration problems (e.g. Algerians in France, Pakistanis in G.B.)can be seen as a reverse crusade in that they are the exportation of Arab domestic problems to Europe. While it is true that most Muslims can read Arabic and the Koran is accessible to them, it must be remembered that the madrassas are essentially brainwashing institutions. Young muslims can read their holy book, yes; but a Jihadic, radical interpretation has been so cemented into their head that they can see no other interpretation.
Which brings me to my point. What saved Christianity was Martin Luther. It is important to keep in mind that Martin Luther did two things: first he of course founded the protestant church but secondly, the sucess of protestantism cause the catholic chuch to make major reforms as well--they had to do so to compete with the protestants. I think, therefore, that what the Arab world needs is their own Martin Luther. It has to be an Arab. It can't be done by us. They won't listen to us. They never will.
So what do we do? Well what we are doing now is good; people learn by experience. It can only help for Arabs to see that radical Islam is a path to death and destruction. It will make some Muslims reconsider things. Perhaps one will be a Martin Luther (remember Luther started as a Catholic priest). We also need to find other ways to make the situation worse. Reducing our dependancy on oil I think is the easiest and most obvious way to do this. (I say this for with out any concern for environmental matters.) In the short term this means drill in ANWAR. The lager goal, however, is hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear, wind, microwave power plants and the like. Where do you think the money comes for Iran's nuclear program, for the rockets being shot at Israel? Money is the only thing peventing total Arab collapse. Every society has a breaking point. We should help the Arabs get their. When their society and culture is in ruins, someone will see where radical Islam has gotten them and how infinately worse off they are now than 50 years ago. Hopefully this someone will have the courage to be the Muslim Luther.
*Note: I acknowledge certain key differences in Islam and Christianity doctrinally that make reform much more difficult for Islam than Christianity. My point, however, has nothing to do with theology, but rather how politics use religion for their own gain. When leaders do this, it matters little what the religion actually says; politicians, judges, clergy-men and executives can make words mean whatever they want them to mean and the masses will eat it up.
I'm guessing this is the Super Best Friends epdisode from years back where Jesus, Mohammad, Buddah and others team up to save the world.
Good! Anything that maked the followers of the pervert angry can't be all bad.
As another Freeper posted: There is no whore like allah and mohammad is her pimp.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.