posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 04:44 AM
Originally posted by ollncasino
reply to post by aaron2209
Many people assume that Islam is a religion of peace corrupted by a misguided minority.
In fact Muhammad authorized the assassination of people who criticized Islam, according to the first biography on his life written by a devout Muslim
in 768 AD.
• Muhammad authorised the murder of a number of poets (male & female) who had mocked him. One poet was a mother sleeping with her young children.
The Muslim assassin had to move the child aside before thrusting his dagger into her chest. Another victim was a male poet who was, according to
Muslim sources, over 100 years old. Mohammed then absolved the Islamic murderers of any wrong doing.
• He also had a propensity to execute prisoners who had been political opponents in the past. One such man had fallen foul of Muhammad when Muhammad
was in his early days due to being a better story teller than Muhammad,. "Who will look after my young daughter?" cried the man, moments before he
was executed. Muhammad then cursed him.
The Life of Muhammad (768 AD) by Ibn Ishaq
Sadly, the violent Muslims are the ones emulating its founding prophet in both spirit and actions.
edit on 15-9-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)
And some would be able to pull the same kind of violent rhetoric from the Bible. The point is that moderate Muslims do not follow these archaic
beliefs, just as many Christians don't agree with taking slaves, stoning people, polygamy or selling their daughters.
You can't selectively choose to quote things about one religion and make the claim that everyone who follows that religion is the same, just as we
can't do that about Christians.
On the OP, I am as equally concerned about the response this generates from people who are already ignorant enough to think that his is ALL
This is no longer just about people other countries protesting, when it comes to our shores we have to think about the response others might have to
it. In the UK we have the complete ignorance of the BNP and EDL, so I'm kind of expecting that the moment we have a protest like this here those
thugs will be out there too, causing more violence.
It's also interesting to discuss where freedom of speech begins and ends. I see some here condemning the signs (and in my opinion, rightly so) but if
we argue that people have the freedom to insult a religion (which we do) isn't it hypocritical to then argue against someone holding a sign that we
Where does freedom end and incitement begin? If you can argue that the sign being held up is incitement, then isn't the video that started all of
this also incitement?
Freedom of expression is vital, but I think there does need to be some responsibility. If something is deemed to be deliberately inciting then it
should be banned. Calling for the murder of others should be illegal.
What are Americans opinions on that? Would you agree that calling for someone to be killed is not freedom of speech or opinion, or would you defend
this sign under the banner of freedom of speech?