It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would the prophet Mohammed been offended by the Charlie Hebdo satire?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: infolurker

.

And where did Robert Payne get this information from?


I see a lot of words backed up by no sources.


In fact the only reference to Muhammad being possessed comes from Robert Payne... Of the 20th Century!


Very reliable!


Um, the Hadiths.

Aren't the Hadiths reliable any more?




posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: samjonesy

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Good evening ATS, I have a question that I have been pondering on since the atrocities in Paris.

Would the prophet Mohammed been offended by the satirical cartoons that Charlie Hebdo published?

I have read much text over the last week or so and I have come to the conclusion that he would probably have laughed and forgiven the editors of Charlie Hebdo. Therefore, what gives others the right to feel offended on his behalf? No living person actually knows what he looked like, so any depiction isn't going to be an accurate one.

I personally do not think that religion should have the privilege of being protected from criticism or satire. Sure there have been many religions that have been harshly treated throughout history, but no religion should be protected by law from criticism, let alone anyone deciding to take someone's life as a result.



Cobalt, your hunch is correct, he actually did forgive people and laugh it off. More than people realize. He spent much time debating with redneck Arabs trying to convince them that its not a good idea to screw their own sisters, and to kill their babies just because they were girls. (they preferred boys to girls, the same situation goes on in idia today ). The arabs much like Warminindy didn't agree with his crazy ideas so they constantly harassed and insulted him. This is what he said about situations like that.
"The Muslim who mixes with the people and bears patiently their hurtful words, is better than one who does not mix with people and does not show patience under their abuse."
He was also commanded by God in the Holy Quran to be patient....
"Bear patiently what they say." (20:130 and 50:39)


Thank you for referencing me.

Actually, listen to this, Mohammed wanted to have sex with the wife of his adopted son. See, the kicker was he knew it was adultery, so he violates the commandment to have sex with her and then when challenged by his own followers, nullifies adoption so he can go on have sex with whatever woman he wants.

It was his OWN followers who challenged him on that, then ONLY at that moment says Allah made adultery OK for him, which cannot be the God of the Bible who said "thou shalt not commit adultery".

Mohammed only said Allah said it was ok, so it can't be the God of the Bible, because the God of the Bible said not to do it and there were no exceptions. Mohammed, con artist extraordinaire. I don't know why you people keep buying into his shell game, because normal and rational people see right through him.

The man was a liar, a con artist, a thief, a murderer, a child rapist, you name it, the guy was that.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: samjonesy

What if all religious texts were taken as allegory? If we were to take away every last detail, would we be left with the frustrations of the age? Methinks all literary works are a product of a metacognition, and the desire to share. Now that would make religion an interesting story



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy
as a point of interest, do you believe other religious figures are above such scrutiny? I remember a god who annihilated two cities because he was grumpy.

I do apologize ... I am a person of comparative literature with focus on religious texts.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: mnemonicmania
a reply to: WarminIndy
as a point of interest, do you believe other religious figures are above such scrutiny? I remember a god who annihilated two cities because he was grumpy.

I do apologize ... I am a person of comparative literature with focus on religious texts.


We are talking about Mohammed, he might be a religious figure but he certainly made his own religion based on lies. And you count the God of the Bible as simply a religious figure?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I count gods as a thing that was presented to me, and scriptural religion does agree with this point, profusely. Do not take false idols, do not render the prophets... do you think the texts referenced only visual depictions? By definition all religions that practice symbolism, are heretic.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

The Hadiths are like the Talmud or some of christianity's "lost gospels" - That is, they're as valid as the reader wants them to be. And of course you, with your axe to grind, are going to make some very large assumptions.

Are you interested in dialogue, or are you just going to attack and flail your arms like a wacky inflatable tube man?



Aaaaanyway, would Mohammed be offended by the Hebdo cover? I dunno. Which cover? he stars on a few of them. I don't think many people enjoy scatological humor about themselves, though. Maybe?



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TheTengriist

I like you.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   
No. Absolutely not. From what I've learned about this Mohammed guy is he seemed pretty legit. I think he'd be peeved at the moronic terrorists for totally missing the point and for making him and normal muslims look really bad. The dude's teachings didn't glorify jihad i don't think. It more or less said that honor and justice should be pursued and maintained. more or less. it does not say barbarically slaughter innocent people for only then will you receive super hot chicks to bed with in paradise. lol who's the one who came up with that crap anyway? lol was it mohammed? xD i hope not haha



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: rukia
No. Absolutely not. From what I've learned about this Mohammed guy is he seemed pretty legit. I think he'd be peeved at the moronic terrorists for totally missing the point and for making him and normal muslims look really bad. The dude's teachings didn't glorify jihad i don't think. It more or less said that honor and justice should be pursued and maintained. more or less. it does not say barbarically slaughter innocent people for only then will you receive super hot chicks to bed with in paradise. lol who's the one who came up with that crap anyway? lol was it mohammed? xD i hope not haha


Yes, show me in the Quran where Mohammed said that Christians and Jews are not to be made dhimmis and the world does not have to pay jizyah tax.

There is no compulsion in religion....except for those who don't want to to be Muslim any more. No, you say you can't force anyone, but somehow, magically, people are forced to be Muslim in those countries. EXPLAIN, please.

Tell us why Muslims live under a death sentence if they even think about leaving Islam. Can you explain why that has been that way since Mohammed?



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheTengriist
a reply to: WarminIndy

The Hadiths are like the Talmud or some of christianity's "lost gospels" - That is, they're as valid as the reader wants them to be. And of course you, with your axe to grind, are going to make some very large assumptions.

Are you interested in dialogue, or are you just going to attack and flail your arms like a wacky inflatable tube man?



Aaaaanyway, would Mohammed be offended by the Hebdo cover? I dunno. Which cover? he stars on a few of them. I don't think many people enjoy scatological humor about themselves, though. Maybe?


I know what the Hadiths are, funny thing, I have read them.

Muslims are encouraged to read the Hadiths, because they are SECOND in authority to the Quran and the Quranic explanation is found in the Hadiths. They go together like love and marriage, you can't have one without the other. Every Muslim knows this, that is why death sentences have been issued against certain Muslims who say they reject the Hadiths.

Please, who do you think you are talking to?

Do you think I'm just some ignunt 'Murcan fundamentalist who doesn't know any Muslims or have spoken to any Muslims? Please, when I say I know the Hadiths and the Quran, I tell you the truth. Just because you liken them to the Lost Gospels or Talmud, which neither of those texts are part of the required reading for Christians and Jews.

The Hadiths are required. Now, which Hadith should we discuss?



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
It was never my intention for this thread to become an Islam bashing thread, it was to point out that what I have read, I think he would have certainly forgiven the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo. I certainly don't think he would have consented to the actions of the extremists, so why take great offence and then undertake such atrocities?

As with many religious texts, they can be twisted to suit a certain agenda, which has culminated in the deaths of many innocent people.

But, so too can certain events, as has been evident in the last 15 years or so. How many were on the streets in solidarity of the number of innocent lives our Governmants have taken in the conflicts in the M.E and Afghanistan? How many World leaders have come together, linked arms and walked through the streets of a major capital city in defiance of the atrocities caused by our Governmants?


edit on 16/1/15 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
It was never my intention for this thread to become an Islam bashing thread, it was to point out that what I have read, I think he would have certainly forgiven the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo. I certainly don't think he would have consented to the actions of the extremists, so why take great offence and then undertake such atrocities?

As with many religious texts, they can be twisted to suit a certain agenda, which has culminated in the deaths of many innocent people.

But, so too can certain events, as has been evident in the last 15 years or so. How many were on the streets in solidarity of the number of innocent lives our Governmants have taken in the conflicts in the M.E and Afghanistan? How many World leaders have come together, linked arms and walked through the streets of a major capital city in defiance of the atrocities caused by our Governmants?



You asked a question, would Mohammed be offended. I replied yes, because he wasn't such the nice guy that they try to make him out to be.

I then told you why. It's not my fault there are over a billion people trying to push our heads in the sand so we can't really see what is going on. At some point, rational, logical and analytical people are going to have to step back and take a look at what the guy really was, ask themselves if they are really following something true and then either fix their religion or abandon it.

Christians and Jews have fixed our religions, we aren't stoning people, we aren't chopping them up, we aren't hanging them, like in the Middle Ages. So is it too much to ask Muslims to examine their religion, see what is not working and fix it?

But let me remind you, do Christians flip out insane over every cartoon, movie, tv show, music video that makes fun of Jesus? Tell me, do Jews flip out insane over the bad things said about Moses? Nope and Nope.

Fix it and stop trying to pretend it works.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I agree with you. Muhammad absolutely would have been offended. When he was alive and he was offended by what people said about him, he made sure his followers put those people to death and he praised them for doing it.

'Asma' bint Marwan was murdered at Muhammads orders because she offended him with her poetry.

Her poems were an ancient version of the same kind of thing put out by the French magazine. It was political satire and/or commentary via ancient poetry.

He did the same with Abu 'Afak for his anti-Muhammad poetry. And the same with Al Nadr ibn al-Harith. ETC ETC

List of those Muhammad Ordered Murdered and His 'Reasons' Why
edit on 1/16/2015 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Allah didn't even speak to Mohammed.

Muhammad made a lot of claims about divine visitations and revelations, but he gave absolutely no proof that anything he said was really from Heaven. In fact, his war lording actions tell me just the opposite.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I think if you had first-hand knowledge, you would be posting them first-handedly, rather than citing from tertiary sources as you are doing.

I suspect you probably are a "murican" - your "Married with Children" reference kind of gives it away. or a reference to Frank Sinatra, either way. Whether you'r a "fundamentalist," I don't know, that's all in your head, I'm not privy to it. But the source you've decided to use to show us what you know of Islam is very certainly a christian fundamentalist blog, so I figure it wouldn't be a huge leap if anyone thought you were as well.

What's clear is that your "familiarity" with Islam is wholly in the negative, uses anti-Islam christian blogs as a source, and doesn't stand up under scrutiny. At least it hasn't stood up well in this thread.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTengriist
a reply to: WarminIndy

I think if you had first-hand knowledge, you would be posting them first-handedly, rather than citing from tertiary sources as you are doing.

I suspect you probably are a "murican" - your "Married with Children" reference kind of gives it away. or a reference to Frank Sinatra, either way. Whether you'r a "fundamentalist," I don't know, that's all in your head, I'm not privy to it. But the source you've decided to use to show us what you know of Islam is very certainly a christian fundamentalist blog, so I figure it wouldn't be a huge leap if anyone thought you were as well.

What's clear is that your "familiarity" with Islam is wholly in the negative, uses anti-Islam christian blogs as a source, and doesn't stand up under scrutiny. At least it hasn't stood up well in this thread.


Please. Do you assume I don't know or have ever met any Muslims?

Show me the link I posted. I said that all references to Hadiths come from the Hadiths, don't play taqiyya with me. Would you like to discuss the ridiculousness of Hadiths? Would you like to discuss the historical inaccuracies of the Quran? Take your pick, we have a lot of time.

YOU made a false statement that Hadiths were like Talmud or Lost Gospels, Hadith is NOT a set of books like that, Hadith is SECOND in authority to the Quran. Now tell me what part of this you do not understand.

Because you DIDN'T know the difference and the importance of Hadith, don't call me ignorant, it just makes me think you play taqqiyah.

The OP asked a question, I said yes and said why. Please remind me of what happened to Zoroastrians today in Iran. Tell us why Zoroastrian sites are being destroyed. But since you seem to believe you know everything about Muslims because maybe you met a Muslim and he seemed to be a nice person, he was playing the game with you. Do you not understand that?

Yes I have worked with Muslims, I have conversed with Muslims so don't act like I don't know anything about Muslims. Go ahead, keep playing the shell game, I am betting on you losing.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

It is important in a productive discussion to stay on point, not float off to another idea. Specifics are important.

In this case, I referenced the Prophets images with regard to his image specifically overshadowing the message in the minds of his followers less able to discern. Ergo, his insistence on foregoing images of himself. He did not want anybody to confuse an image of himself with God or God's message. Pagan traditions were alive and well at this time and place in history.

Your reference, while part of the story, has no bearing on this particular.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: WarminIndy

It is important in a productive discussion to stay on point, not float off to another idea. Specifics are important.

In this case, I referenced the Prophets images with regard to his image specifically overshadowing the message in the minds of his followers less able to discern. Ergo, his insistence on foregoing images of himself. He did not want anybody to confuse an image of himself with God or God's message. Pagan traditions were alive and well at this time and place in history.

Your reference, while part of the story, has no bearing on this particular.


Uhm yeah, that's why historically there are paintings of Mohammed all over the world, and you can even see them in the various museums.

But here is why Mohammed said not to paint animals or make snowmen, because those who paint or sculpt in the end of time they will be asked to breath life into their artwork.

Has nothing to do with idol worship, has nothing to do with whether or not people might worship Mohammed, it has everything to do with his own superstition.

Images of Mohammed in paintings


"Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created." (Sahih Muslim vol.3, no.5268)


Either those were very good Muslims who got by with the Middle Ages painting of Mohammed or they were acceptable because they didn't really expose Mohammed for what he was. Which, by the way, why can't one draw a picture of Mohammed as a war lord? Why can't one draw a picture of Mohammed having sex with a 9 year-old girl? (That would be porn anyway and in very bad taste), but those are things Mohammed really did. Don't they want us to actually visualize what Mohammed did, is it too embarrassing what Mohammed did? Is that why they kill over it?

Yes, if one were to really paint or draw Mohammed forcing Aisha as a little girl to have sex, then that would really be disturbing. It is one thing to read about it, it is also one thing to hear about it, but it is quite another to be forced to actually see him do it.

But I am not advocating anyone drawing that kind of picture, the point is, if Mohammed is above scrutiny, then why the knee jerk reactions over the drawings making fun of him for what he actually did? He really did those things, so why be embarrassed about it? I mean, if you follow the guy then you should expect that his openly published acts and deeds be addressed at some point. I mean, you follow the guy, so why act like what he did, you are too embarrassed to talk about?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join