Opinion of Muhammad

[they don't love you like i love you]

So is Kal actually calling South Park offensive?

I don't, though some people may offended by SP (and pretty much any other TV Show) and that's their right. I'm not advocating censoring anything and you've once again missed the point by a mile.

Offending others is not really something I tend to concern myself with.

Perfect case in point: I have a band shirt with a lyric written on the back "This is your last dance f[inks] standing still". I can't wear it to work because I did once and got asked to never again, so I wore it while I was doing laundry and all my other shirts were in the wash. Once laundry was done I kind of figured since it was already on I'd keep it on. I went to church in the afternoon yesterday, so yep, that's the shirt I wore.

Now to many Christians (though not the ones at my church of course) that would be considered deeply offensive and they'd be downright horrified. Like can you imagine someone wearing that at a Catholic church? I've also gone to church somewhat high and buzzed before (probably around 0.5 BAC) Offensive to many? No doubt. Does that mean I should care or stop? No. And I'm not going to ask dead0man to do the same. If I ever talk to anyone in a band I see at shows who have anti-Christian lyrics have I ever asked them to stop it? No. I'll keep listening to them despite disagreeing with them and am not offended. There's plenty of offensive things in the world, by standards that's pretty low. Which would Jesus be more bothered by, the millions of people starving who the Republicans keep trying to make things worse for, or some guy screaming "F[INKS] YOUR CHRIST!" during a breakdown part of the song? It's obvious.

There's things worth caring about. Non-Christians being blasphemous for shock value, profanity and disrespecting Muhammed rank pretty low on those list of things to me.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Heh. I was merely pointing out something does offend many people, and you have responded with a long and irrevelant rant about going drunk to your church. The world does not resolve around you, Red. But, as a famous man once said, "bqhatevwr".

Yep, it's time to abandon this thread.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Hey whatever. Next time you or someone else posts something blatantly stupid and also factually incorrect about emo I'll point out that you're offending many people.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Religion is more important than emo to most people.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Religion is more important than emo to most people.

Have you ever met someone REALLY into the scene? Living in Amherst you probably have actually.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yeah, I'm sorry for being considerate to how other people, not sharing my viewpoint, may feel about certain things

For a self-proclaimed "tolerant" and liberal" person, you're surprisingly unaware of anything but your own narrow percepton, Red. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

An extraordinary historical figure.

Also, dead0man's picture basically just looks like Jesus (the Kenny Loggins lookalike version) in a turban and possibly with some eye makeup, really.

Amazing.  Two people from the Middle East are depicted similarly.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Yeah, I'm sorry for being considerate to how other people, not sharing my viewpoint, may feel about certain things

For a self-proclaimed "tolerant" and liberal" person, you're surprisingly unaware of anything but your own narrow percepton, Red. 

If I was constantly concerned about if something might offend someone else, how could I be such a huge fan of Family Guy?

And Family Guy is unquestionably a very tolerant and liberal show despite how offensive it often is and how unconcerned about that fact the writers are as well. It's not necessarily hypocrisy.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Religion is more important than emo to most people.

Have you ever met someone REALLY into the scene? Living in Amherst you probably have actually.

Yes, of course I have, but I said 'most people'.

An extraordinary historical figure.

Also, dead0man's picture basically just looks like Jesus (the Kenny Loggins lookalike version) in a turban and possibly with some eye makeup, really.

Amazing.  Two people from the Middle East are depicted similarly.

Oh, no, that's not the amazing part; some similarity is to be entirely expected (hoped for, really, considering the alternative way of depicting Jesus). The amazing part is that, far beyond just being similar, it really is a dead ringer for a picture of Jesus at a non-denominational megachurch in Alabama I once visited.

Yeah, I'm sorry for being considerate to how other people, not sharing my viewpoint, may feel about certain things

For a self-proclaimed "tolerant" and liberal" person, you're surprisingly unaware of anything but your own narrow percepton, Red. 

If I was constantly concerned about if something might offend someone else, how could I be such a huge fan of Family Guy?

And Family Guy is unquestionably a very tolerant and liberal show despite how offensive it often is and how unconcerned about that fact the writers are as well. It's not necessarily hypocrisy.

Family Guy is very liberal but it isn't really by any lights tolerant.

[Mopsus]

I was under the impression that Muslims forbade depicting Muhammad's face (or the face of any other prophet) because it's considered a form of iconography. Why, then, do some Muslims react so strongly to the practice? Or is it just because the most high-profile example of Muhammad's face being depicted in the Western media was in an extremely offensive manner?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Really no worse than any other warlord of the time (still a low bar), and in some ways somewhat more progressive than others.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Does "an extraordinary historical figure" equal automatic FF? We could say the same term for Christopher Columbus or Genghis Khan after all.

[dead0man]

Yeah, but nobody will be murdered if you don't praise Khan or Chris.

[Frodo]

Those who actually took the effort to educate themselves (and it seems almost no one did) would know the man was a liberal for his time...  

Don't blame him for the failings of his followers, any more than you would blame Jesus for the atrocities committed in his name during the Crusades. 

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Does "an extraordinary historical figure" equal automatic FF? We could say the same term for Christopher Columbus or Genghis Khan after all.

I, at least, took it as a way to express my contempt for the question.

[H. Ross Peron]

Out of curiosity have there been threads regarding for instance Moses or certain actions by Joshua in the book bearing his name?

Those who actually took the effort to educate themselves (and it seems almost no one did) would know the man was a liberal for his time...  

In what ways?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well the thing is, he did engage in wars of conquest for religious reasons so that can't be simply chalked up as "failings of his followers". Of course I doubt he'd have approved of suicide bombing though.

[they don't love you like i love you]

And the massacre of the Jews of Medina.

[dead0man]

Maybe he'd do better in the polls if he was just a pedo supporter instead of a full on pedo?  At least around here.

[afleitch]

And the massacre of the Jews of Medina.

I'm assuming you would be equally as concerned with the massacre of the Amelekites and Midianites.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As unusual as it may be, I think I actually side with Dead0 and BRTD on this. The right to blasphemy is a fundamental conquest of our secular societies, and is only kept alive by exerting it actively. People with religious beliefs (whether it be Christians, Muslims or whatever) should simply learn not to be offended by the actions of those who do not share their beliefs.

[they don't love you like i love you]

And the massacre of the Jews of Medina.

I'm assuming you would be equally as concerned with the massacre of the Amelekites and Midianites.

I would be if Jesus was responsible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And the massacre of the Jews of Medina.

I'm assuming you would be equally as concerned with the massacre of the Amelekites and Midianites.

I would be if Jesus was responsible.

Then you hold that Jesus and YHWH are not the same God?  Or do you hold those massacres to be mythical rather than historical?

[BaconBacon96]

This thread is stupid and offensive.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Trying to return to OP for a moment, I think historical figures as Muhammad (and, yep, Genghis Khan too) can't be objectively judged by our modern standards.

Sure, from our point of view he was an HP, but in context of his time he was a force of progress as opposed to most of his opponents, although there are black points of his record.

Really, such outlook is as shallow as certain banned poster asking on the history board if "Tudors supported welfare state".   

Kal's offended reaction to dead0man's completely vanilla post certainly is amusing. (I know he said that he was merely noting that it is offensive to other people, but I'm going to assume that he wouldn't call anyone an "asshat" if he were not offended).

Yes, reaction might have been too strong. My reasons were dead0man has quite a history of intentionally making insensitive and offensive remarks toward the Muslims. I don't like bigotry, that's all.

Does "an extraordinary historical figure" equal automatic FF?

I never said that. Please read without putting words in my mouth

As unusual as it may be, I think I actually side with Dead0 and BRTD on this. The right to blasphemy is a fundamental conquest of our secular societies, and is only kept alive by exerting it actively. People with religious beliefs (whether it be Christians, Muslims or whatever) should simply learn not to be offended by the actions of those who do not share their beliefs.

Naturally. The people have a right to feel offended (seriously, every one of us was at least once offfended by something), but violence against the offending part is never justified.

I don't like when people are being offensive just for sake of pissing others off. That's stupid and unproductive. I'm entitled to my opinion as much as everyone here

[afleitch]

I agree with your sentiments. I am also 100% in favour of being able to take a negative stance on a religious figure and not cow to those who consider it to be blasphemous. Blasphemy is a great expression of personal freedom. What annoys me is that there are certain figures who are 'fairer game' than others given the make-up of this board. Some figures must be 'respected' or 'seen in context' at all times. Others such as Mohammed are fair game. At least, it is to be said, someone has actually brought him up after all this time.

Now I think everyone is fair game of course but there has been no attempt at any genuine and forthright appraisal of Mohammed either in the positive or negative. Instead we have a poll that is shepherding people towards a particular answer. That's why people find this uncomfortable.