Jump to content

Cartoon Shooting France


mrggg123
 Share

Recommended Posts

You read the Shri Guru Granth Sahib? or know of its contents? is their any mention in it of the Quran, Prophets being evil or insulting in any way to ANY religion?

Fact is not insult. I knew you were going to pull this line, thats why I even provided you with references. Secondly, on the matter of satire, which started this debacle we can say even the Bhagat Sahibaans were satirists. Bhagat Namdev mentions Muslims being one-eyed, Kabir proclaims the fallibility of both Islam and Hinduism. Would you consider that as being insulting? If Bhagat Namdev was alive today and again reiterated, 'Muslims are blind' would you argue that he deserves, or deserved, to die because of his thoughts. Wouldn't that be restricting Bhagat Sahib's freedom of speech though? You argue freedom of speech is hypocritical, but would that make any firm believer in it hypocritical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact is not insult. I knew you were going to pull this line, thats why I even provided you with references.

But bro this Pakandi Baba might claim that you saying "2 plus 2 = 4" is an insult next!

Calling Prophet Muhammad a slaveowner because he sold innocent black African children into slavery for personal profit is not an insult against Muhammad, given that slavery is openly supported in the Holy Quran which openly supports the rape of female slaves.

If Muslims like Pakhandi Baba are so insulted why doesn't he refute the following facts mentioned by David Wood?

Fact #1: Muhammad supported his fledgling religion by robbing people. The early Muslims could have maintained Islam through hard work, frugal spending, and the donations of admirers. Yet Muhammad chose robbery as his chief source of income, and greed soon became one of the primary factors in people’s rapid conversion to Islam. Indeed, Muhammad deliberately used the spoils of war to lure people to Islam. When he was criticized for the way he distributed his newfound wealth, he replied, "Are you disturbed in mind because of the good things of this life by which I win over a people that they may become Muslims while I entrust you to your Islam?"[8] Given the prospect of untold riches, it’s no wonder so many people committed themselves to Islam. Muhammad guaranteed that Allah "will admit the Struggler in His cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty."[9] This message must have sounded extraordinary to the poor of Arabia. If they died in the cause of Allah, they would go to Paradise and be rich. If they survived, they would plunder their enemies and be rich. Either way, their situation would be much better upon embracing Islam.

(For more on Muhammad’s use of riches to win converts, see "Don’t Lose Your Head!")

Fact #2: Muhammad was often ruthless towards his adversaries. Punishments for taking a stand against Muhammad included torture and death. Both men and women were brutally killed for criticizing Muhammad.[10] Hundreds of Jewish men were beheaded for standing against him, while their wives and children were sold into slavery.[11] Some early Muslims who apostatized were killed after Muhammad gave the command to kill all who turn away from Islam.[12] Modern Muslims often claim that Muhammad only killed when he was attacked by his enemies, but history shows that he murdered numerous people whose only crime was writing poems against him.[13] Given the facts, it’s difficult to understand how Muslim writers such as Mawdudi could have the audacity to claim that Muhammad "never took revenge on anyone for his personal grievances."

(For more on Muhammad’s brutality, see "Murdered by Muhammad.")

Fact #3: Muhammad had far more wives than even his own revelations allowed. The Qur’an allows Muslims to have up to four wives: "And if you fear that you will not deal fairly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you cannot deal justly (with so many), then one only, or (the captives) that your right hands possess" (4:3). We know that Muhammad had at least thirteen wives during his life, and that he had at least nine wives at one time. Of course, he did receive a Qur’anic revelation telling him that he alone could exceed the four-wife limit: "O Prophet! We have made lawful unto you your wives whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given as spoils of war, . . . a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) believers" (33:50). Nevertheless, since Muhammad was the one receiving revelations that allowed him to transgress rules that applied to everyone else, many people have concluded that he was inventing revelations to justify his hypocritical behavior.

(For more on Muhammad’s wives, see "Why Did Mohammed Get So Many Wives?")

Fact #4: Muhammad sexually consummated a marriage to a nine-year-old girl. Muhammad’s courtship of Aisha began when she was only six.[14] Muhammad had a dream about her, which led him to believe that God wanted him to marry the young girl.[15] Fortunately, Muhammad didn’t have sex with her until she reached menses at the age of nine. (Most girls do not have their first period by this age, but Aisha had been suffering from some form of intense sickness, which probably induced menses early.) Muhammad apparently took Aisha’s first menstruation as a sign that she was an adult ready for sexual relations, and Aisha quickly became his favorite wife. Among her earliest duties as Muhammad’s wife was the task of washing semen stains off his clothes: "Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them."[16]

(For more on Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha, see "Was Muhammad a Pedophile?")

Fact #5: Muhammad had a contemptible opinion of women. Muslim apologists often argue that Muhammad raised the status of women, and they are entirely correct in saying this. However, the status to which he raised them is almost as shameful as their status in pre-Islamic Arabia. According to Muhammad, women’s minds are so deficient that the testimony of a woman is worth only half that of a man.[17] Given this lack of intellectual ability, women have to be kept under control by other means. Thus the Qur’an sanctions the beating of women: "As for those [women] from whom you fear disloyalty, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them (lightly, without visible injury). Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them" (4:34). Notice the parenthetical remarks that the beating should be a light one. These words do not occur in the Arabic; apparently, even Muslim translators have a problem with this verse and do what they can to water it down. Notice also that the beating is done to bring the wives into submission. Muhammad repeatedly warned women about disrespecting their husbands: "The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: ‘I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were thankless.’"[18] Hell, then, is composed primarily of ungrateful women (perhaps their husbands hadn’t beaten them enough). However, even Heaven is a bleak prospect for women, for, according to Muhammad, women will spend eternity standing in the corners of Paradise, waiting for the men to come and have sex with them.[19]

(For more on Muhammad’s opinion of women, see "Banish Them to Their Beds and Scourge Them!")

Fact #6: Muhammad is unique among prophets in that he is the only one to receive a revelation, proclaim it as part of God’s message to man, and later take it back, claiming that it was actually from Satan. According to the earliest extant biography of Muhammad, he eventually became so sad about his countrymen’s rejection of his prophethood that he began longing for some verses that would bring them to Islam. He soon received what he was looking for—a revelation saying that the intercession of three other gods was acceptable. Muhammad presented the revelation to the people, and his countrymen were overjoyed to hear that they could continue praying to al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat. A mass-conversion to Islam followed, but in time Muhammad received another revelation, which told him that the former verses had been given to him by Satan. God told him not to be too disturbed over the matter, for, according to the new revelation, all prophets occasionally receive ideas from Satan:

The apostle was bitterly grieved and was greatly in fear of God. So God sent down (a revelation), for He was merciful to him, comforting him and making light of the affair and telling him that every prophet and apostle before him desired as he desired and wanted what he wanted and Satan interjected something into his desires as he had on his tongue. So God annulled what Satan had suggested and God established His verses, i.e. you are just like the prophets and apostles. Then God sent down: "We have not sent a prophet or apostle before you but when he longed Satan cast suggestions in his longing. But God will annul what Satan has suggested. Then God will establish his verses, God being knowing and wise."
[20]

(For more on this, see "The Bewitched Prophet.")

These are just some of the facts that Muslims have been keeping secret, but they are enough to make any reasonable person doubt the validity of Islam. Muhammad was guilty of countless murders and of torturing his victims. He robbed caravans and participated in the slave-trade. His persecution of the Jews bordered on genocide. His polygamy went beyond that which even his own revelations permitted (though he did receive a revelation saying that this was okay for him). One of his wives was a nine-year-old girl, whose earliest duties in Muhammad’s house included the constant task of washing the semen stains off his clothes. At times he believed he was demon-possessed or under the effect of magic. He was known to be suicidal. He admittedly received a message from Satan and delivered it to the people as if it were from God. He declared that women have half the intellectual ability that men have, that it is okay for men to beat their wives, that most of the inhabitants of hell are women, and that, even if a woman somehow makes it to heaven, her eternity will consist of standing in a corner, waiting for men to sexually enjoy her.[21]

These details about Muhammad raise a very important question: What does a prophet have to do before Muslims will be willing to question whether he is truly the greatest moral example in history? Normally, when we say that someone is a moral person, we mean that he doesn’t commit acts such as robbery and murder. Yet Muhammad did all these things and much more. It appears, then, that Muslims are using the term "moral" in a very unique way. In this uniquely Muslim sense of the term, the word "moral" is defined as "whatever Muhammad does." Thus, if Muhammad were to chop off the heads of hundreds of people (which he did), this act would still be defined as a moral act, since Muhammad did it, and anything Muhammad does is, by definition, moral.

But this raises another important question. If God’s greatest prophet is free to take part in murder, robbery, genocide, and slave-trading, can we really point a finger at people like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and say that they are evil? They killed many innocents, but so did Muhammad. Saddam tortured countless people, but so did Muhammad. In fact, one could make a case that Osama bin Laden is morally superior to Muhammad, for, while bin Laden killed thousands of people, he didn’t sell their wives and children into slavery, or have sex with a little girl, or marry more than a dozen women.

The truth about Muhammad has been one of the world’s best-kept secrets. For centuries, it has been virtually impossible to raise objections about the character of Muhammad in Muslim countries, for anyone who raised such objections would (following the example set by Muhammad himself) immediately be killed. Outside the Muslim world, there has been little interest in Islam, and those who have been interested have typically relied on modern Muslim reports about Muhammad, such as the above passage from Mawdudi. But things have changed. Now many people are interested in Islam, and Muslims aren’t able to silence everyone. Moreover, with the advent of the Internet, it is now impossible to keep Muhammad’s life a secret. The facts about the founder of Islam are spreading very rapidly, and Muslims are frantically scurrying to defend their faith. But the information superhighway is paving over the ignorance that has for centuries been the stronghold of Islamic dogma. In the end, Islam will fall, for the entire structure is built upon the belief that Muhammad was the greatest moral example in history, and this belief is demonstrably false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But bro this Pakandi Baba might claim that you saying "2 plus 2 = 4" is an insult next!

Calling Prophet Muhammad a slaveowner because he sold innocent black African children into slavery for personal profit is not an insult against Muhammad, given that slavery is openly supported in the Holy Quran which openly supports the rape of female slaves.

If Muslims like Pakhandi Baba are so insulted why doesn't he refute the following facts mentioned by David Wood?

Fact #1: Muhammad supported his fledgling religion by robbing people. The early Muslims could have maintained Islam through hard work, frugal spending, and the donations of admirers. Yet Muhammad chose robbery as his chief source of income, and greed soon became one of the primary factors in people’s rapid conversion to Islam. Indeed, Muhammad deliberately used the spoils of war to lure people to Islam. When he was criticized for the way he distributed his newfound wealth, he replied, "Are you disturbed in mind because of the good things of this life by which I win over a people that they may become Muslims while I entrust you to your Islam?"[8] Given the prospect of untold riches, it’s no wonder so many people committed themselves to Islam. Muhammad guaranteed that Allah "will admit the Struggler in His cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty."[9] This message must have sounded extraordinary to the poor of Arabia. If they died in the cause of Allah, they would go to Paradise and be rich. If they survived, they would plunder their enemies and be rich. Either way, their situation would be much better upon embracing Islam.

(For more on Muhammad’s use of riches to win converts, see "Don’t Lose Your Head!")

Fact #2: Muhammad was often ruthless towards his adversaries. Punishments for taking a stand against Muhammad included torture and death. Both men and women were brutally killed for criticizing Muhammad.[10] Hundreds of Jewish men were beheaded for standing against him, while their wives and children were sold into slavery.[11] Some early Muslims who apostatized were killed after Muhammad gave the command to kill all who turn away from Islam.[12] Modern Muslims often claim that Muhammad only killed when he was attacked by his enemies, but history shows that he murdered numerous people whose only crime was writing poems against him.[13] Given the facts, it’s difficult to understand how Muslim writers such as Mawdudi could have the audacity to claim that Muhammad "never took revenge on anyone for his personal grievances."

(For more on Muhammad’s brutality, see "Murdered by Muhammad.")

Fact #3: Muhammad had far more wives than even his own revelations allowed. The Qur’an allows Muslims to have up to four wives: "And if you fear that you will not deal fairly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you cannot deal justly (with so many), then one only, or (the captives) that your right hands possess" (4:3). We know that Muhammad had at least thirteen wives during his life, and that he had at least nine wives at one time. Of course, he did receive a Qur’anic revelation telling him that he alone could exceed the four-wife limit: "O Prophet! We have made lawful unto you your wives whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given as spoils of war, . . . a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) believers" (33:50). Nevertheless, since Muhammad was the one receiving revelations that allowed him to transgress rules that applied to everyone else, many people have concluded that he was inventing revelations to justify his hypocritical behavior.

(For more on Muhammad’s wives, see "Why Did Mohammed Get So Many Wives?")

Fact #4: Muhammad sexually consummated a marriage to a nine-year-old girl. Muhammad’s courtship of Aisha began when she was only six.[14] Muhammad had a dream about her, which led him to believe that God wanted him to marry the young girl.[15] Fortunately, Muhammad didn’t have sex with her until she reached menses at the age of nine. (Most girls do not have their first period by this age, but Aisha had been suffering from some form of intense sickness, which probably induced menses early.) Muhammad apparently took Aisha’s first menstruation as a sign that she was an adult ready for sexual relations, and Aisha quickly became his favorite wife. Among her earliest duties as Muhammad’s wife was the task of washing semen stains off his clothes: "Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them."[16]

(For more on Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha, see "Was Muhammad a Pedophile?")

Fact #5: Muhammad had a contemptible opinion of women. Muslim apologists often argue that Muhammad raised the status of women, and they are entirely correct in saying this. However, the status to which he raised them is almost as shameful as their status in pre-Islamic Arabia. According to Muhammad, women’s minds are so deficient that the testimony of a woman is worth only half that of a man.[17] Given this lack of intellectual ability, women have to be kept under control by other means. Thus the Qur’an sanctions the beating of women: "As for those [women] from whom you fear disloyalty, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them (lightly, without visible injury). Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them" (4:34). Notice the parenthetical remarks that the beating should be a light one. These words do not occur in the Arabic; apparently, even Muslim translators have a problem with this verse and do what they can to water it down. Notice also that the beating is done to bring the wives into submission. Muhammad repeatedly warned women about disrespecting their husbands: "The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: ‘I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were thankless.’"[18] Hell, then, is composed primarily of ungrateful women (perhaps their husbands hadn’t beaten them enough). However, even Heaven is a bleak prospect for women, for, according to Muhammad, women will spend eternity standing in the corners of Paradise, waiting for the men to come and have sex with them.[19]

(For more on Muhammad’s opinion of women, see "Banish Them to Their Beds and Scourge Them!")

Fact #6: Muhammad is unique among prophets in that he is the only one to receive a revelation, proclaim it as part of God’s message to man, and later take it back, claiming that it was actually from Satan. According to the earliest extant biography of Muhammad, he eventually became so sad about his countrymen’s rejection of his prophethood that he began longing for some verses that would bring them to Islam. He soon received what he was looking for—a revelation saying that the intercession of three other gods was acceptable. Muhammad presented the revelation to the people, and his countrymen were overjoyed to hear that they could continue praying to al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat. A mass-conversion to Islam followed, but in time Muhammad received another revelation, which told him that the former verses had been given to him by Satan. God told him not to be too disturbed over the matter, for, according to the new revelation, all prophets occasionally receive ideas from Satan:

The apostle was bitterly grieved and was greatly in fear of God. So God sent down (a revelation), for He was merciful to him, comforting him and making light of the affair and telling him that every prophet and apostle before him desired as he desired and wanted what he wanted and Satan interjected something into his desires as he had on his tongue. So God annulled what Satan had suggested and God established His verses, i.e. you are just like the prophets and apostles. Then God sent down: "We have not sent a prophet or apostle before you but when he longed Satan cast suggestions in his longing. But God will annul what Satan has suggested. Then God will establish his verses, God being knowing and wise."
[20]

(For more on this, see "The Bewitched Prophet.")

These are just some of the facts that Muslims have been keeping secret, but they are enough to make any reasonable person doubt the validity of Islam. Muhammad was guilty of countless murders and of torturing his victims. He robbed caravans and participated in the slave-trade. His persecution of the Jews bordered on genocide. His polygamy went beyond that which even his own revelations permitted (though he did receive a revelation saying that this was okay for him). One of his wives was a nine-year-old girl, whose earliest duties in Muhammad’s house included the constant task of washing the semen stains off his clothes. At times he believed he was demon-possessed or under the effect of magic. He was known to be suicidal. He admittedly received a message from Satan and delivered it to the people as if it were from God. He declared that women have half the intellectual ability that men have, that it is okay for men to beat their wives, that most of the inhabitants of hell are women, and that, even if a woman somehow makes it to heaven, her eternity will consist of standing in a corner, waiting for men to sexually enjoy her.[21]

These details about Muhammad raise a very important question: What does a prophet have to do before Muslims will be willing to question whether he is truly the greatest moral example in history? Normally, when we say that someone is a moral person, we mean that he doesn’t commit acts such as robbery and murder. Yet Muhammad did all these things and much more. It appears, then, that Muslims are using the term "moral" in a very unique way. In this uniquely Muslim sense of the term, the word "moral" is defined as "whatever Muhammad does." Thus, if Muhammad were to chop off the heads of hundreds of people (which he did), this act would still be defined as a moral act, since Muhammad did it, and anything Muhammad does is, by definition, moral.

But this raises another important question. If God’s greatest prophet is free to take part in murder, robbery, genocide, and slave-trading, can we really point a finger at people like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and say that they are evil? They killed many innocents, but so did Muhammad. Saddam tortured countless people, but so did Muhammad. In fact, one could make a case that Osama bin Laden is morally superior to Muhammad, for, while bin Laden killed thousands of people, he didn’t sell their wives and children into slavery, or have sex with a little girl, or marry more than a dozen women.

The truth about Muhammad has been one of the world’s best-kept secrets. For centuries, it has been virtually impossible to raise objections about the character of Muhammad in Muslim countries, for anyone who raised such objections would (following the example set by Muhammad himself) immediately be killed. Outside the Muslim world, there has been little interest in Islam, and those who have been interested have typically relied on modern Muslim reports about Muhammad, such as the above passage from Mawdudi. But things have changed. Now many people are interested in Islam, and Muslims aren’t able to silence everyone. Moreover, with the advent of the Internet, it is now impossible to keep Muhammad’s life a secret. The facts about the founder of Islam are spreading very rapidly, and Muslims are frantically scurrying to defend their faith. But the information superhighway is paving over the ignorance that has for centuries been the stronghold of Islamic dogma. In the end, Islam will fall, for the entire structure is built upon the belief that Muhammad was the greatest moral example in history, and this belief is demonstrably false.

This is an excerpt from a close friend's article. She is currently planning to publish a book, and this is a promotional part of her research:

-Islam maintains that the Koran is the very verbatim of Allah, and as such remains unchanged since Muhammad first received its verses in revelation. There is however substantial evidence to indicate, that in the 20 years it was revealed major changes took place in its structure and/or it was changed by later generations. Gerhard Nehls notes, when confronted with this evidence Muslims revert to the doctrine of abrogation. Their argument hinges the fact that a perfect God possesses all rights to change his creation, but as Nehls further notes: ‘we find it unacceptable that within a space of 20 years a need for change or correction can become necessary. This surely suggests that either God is not all-knowing or else the recorder made corrections.’ (56) Nehls further elaborates, ‘furthermore, since no one is aware of the chronology of the suras, there is no way to know for sure which revelations abrogate other revelations. As a result, we are left with a contradictory text that raises more questions than it gives answers. God is not a God of confusion. It simply does not make sense for God to go to the trouble of making His revelation known to man, only to have man confused by that very same revelation.’ (57)

-The notion that Muhammad himself received the Koran in verse is itself contradicted by the Koran. In certain passages it pertains to have been wholly sent down, and in others verse-by-verse. (58) During the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sanan'a in Yemen, labourers unearthed several Koranic fragments. These were forwarded to Gerd-R. Puin, a specialist in Arabic calligraphy and Koranic palaeography (University of Saarland) (59) concluded that the fragments revealed, ‘unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment.’ (60) He further ratified that this evidence suggested, ‘an evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century A.D.’ (61) Yet Puin wasn’t the first, nor the last, scholar to discover Islam’s fallacy regarding the Koran. W. Montgomery Watts in comparing just two of the codices-that of ibn Mas'ud of Rufa and ibn Ka'b of Syria writes, ‘no copies exist of any of the early codices, but the list of variant readings from the two just mentioned is extensive, running to a thousand or more items in both cases.’ (61) Even Muslims differ on the Koran themselves. ‘The Ibn Masud Codex of the Qur'an used by them (Sunnis) has multitudinous variations from the Uthmanic recension. In the second sura alone there are nearly 150 variations.(62) Shia Muslims claim, ‘caliph Uthman intentionally eliminated many verses from the Qur'an that spoke of Ali.’ (63)

-Muhammad himself, ever the wily Prophet, claimed that several Koranic verses were revealed to him by the Devil. Whether this is authentic or not is unsubstantiated, although it is evident that several verses were removed from the Koran, in the post-Muhammad era under the premises of this episode. (64) (Yet again Allah’s status is called into question).

-Orthodox Muslims myopically claim that any variations, in Koranic manuscripts, do not necessarily reflect divergent texts but varied readings. This fallacy however is not credible as the earliest texts do not even contain vowel points.

- Literal, and historic, evidence does not support the notion that the Koran has existed unchanged Ad infinitum; as Jay Smith notes, ‘our earliest manuscripts date from the ninth century. That leaves a gap of roughly 200 years between the life of the Prophet and our first indisputable evidence of a uniform, stabilized text of the Quran.’(64) Without doubt then, the Koran underwent many changes during this period and Muslims are hell-bent to veil this fact from history.

-Anachronisms and illogicality are replete throughout the very verbatim of God. The structural, textual and chronological fallacies of the Koran are already well established but historic obfuscation is also replete throughout its chapters. The text informs the readers that the Israelites begin worshipping the famed golden calf on the instructions of the Samaritans, but as Dr. Gleason Archer substantiates, ‘samaritans did not come into being as a race until after the 6th century B.C., and so there could have been no Samaritan around as early as 1445 B.C.!’ (65)

-Similarly we have the tale of Joseph. In the latter the Egyptian Pharaoh threatens a baker with crucifixion, but as Smith once more notes crucifixion, ‘was first practised [sic] by the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians and then borrowed extensively by the Romans close to the time of Christ, 1700 years after (the said) Pharaoh!’(66) Muslims of course attempt to argue that the Egyptians possessed the ankh, yet the latter was a symbol of fertility and life; as much as the Christian cross is today. What they are attempting to construe, or argue, with this perversion is not clear.

-In conclusion:

‘The transmission of the Qur'an reveals that it did not exist in written form during the life of Muhammad. This is demonstrated by Muslim hadiths with indicate that the collection of revelation was a significant task, if not impossible. There is early evidence of competing version of the Qur'an which prompted Uthman to commission an official version, which was no more accurate than any of the existing competing versions. Among the casualties of this purging were manuscripts by Muhammad's companions who had supposedly memorized the text themselves. A further casualty was the suhuf itself, which was the source of the Uthman text. The only explanation for this wide scale purging is that the texts varied significantly from one another.

These textual variations are evident in recent discoveries of old manuscripts which contain significant variations from the Qur'an today. These variations are also visible in early coins and the Dome of the Rock which bare Qur'anic scriptures that differ from today's text. The lack of early manuscripts strongly suggests that the Qur'an did not exist during the time of Muhammad. The evidence, and lack of evidence, indicates that the Qur'an developed over a period of one hundred years after the death of Muhammad. The use of Jewish and Christian apocryphal writings indicates multiple human authors with no divine origin. The obvious examples of "borrowing" and anachronisms destroy any notion that the God of heaven is the source of the Qur'an.

The internal evidence is another indictment. The literary weaknesses expose writers who are not proficient with their own language. Claiming that God is the direct author of a document with such inconsistent and incorrect use of grammar, is to directly impeach the perfection of God. Yet this must be the position of orthodox muslins since they contend that the Qur'an today is an exact word-for-word copy of God's revelation in heaven.

In conclusion, the Qur'an is not divine. Its authors were mere fallible men, writing a mere fallible book, which evolved over a period of time into what we have today.’(67)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact is not insult. I knew you were going to pull this line, thats why I even provided you with references. Secondly, on the matter of satire, which started this debacle we can say even the Bhagat Sahibaans were satirists. Bhagat Namdev mentions Muslims being one-eyed, Kabir proclaims the fallibility of both Islam and Hinduism. Would you consider that as being insulting? If Bhagat Namdev was alive today and again reiterated, 'Muslims are blind' would you argue that he deserves, or deserved, to die because of his thoughts. Wouldn't that be restricting Bhagat Sahib's freedom of speech though?

Comparing constructive criticism of Muslims and Islam done by the Gurus and Bhagats to bunch of egotistical, fame driven mor*ns is ret*rded. There is not even a grain of substance in your "argument". These mor*ns depicted Muslims Prophet as having sexual relations with a man. Present the Shabads of containing these narratives in Gurbani and I will delete this so called Gurbani you claim of myself or die trying.

Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji was being taunted by a Bahmin. The bahmin was given chances to stop, but he did not stop his insults. Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji grabbed hold of his sword and told him this is your last chance to get out of here. This example shows freedom of speech has a limit in Sikhi. Sikhi does not condone these mor*nic journalist out of this world offensive depictions of Muslims Prophet for a second. Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib ji built a Mosque for the Muslims. Guru Sahib must also be blind in one eye. D*mn whitewashed Sikhs are truly the masands today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13Mirch, on 12 Jan 2015 - 01:46, said:Fact is not insult. I knew you were going to pull this line, thats why I even provided you with references. Secondly, on the matter of satire, which started this debacle we can say even the Bhagat Sahibaans were satirists. Bhagat Namdev mentions Muslims being one-eyed, Kabir proclaims the fallibility of both Islam and Hinduism. Would you consider that as being insulting? If Bhagat Namdev was alive today and again reiterated, 'Muslims are blind' would you argue that he deserves, or deserved, to die because of his thoughts. Wouldn't that be restricting Bhagat Sahib's freedom of speech though?

Deep probing is required on the shabad arth regarding muslim/hindu being anna/kanna. Antriv arths/interpretation its not that straight fwd as arths are alluding to two idiolized mindsets rather which is shared by hindu and muslims around that time. Focus of shabad is on two mindsets rather two groups so this shabad applies more broadly not confined to two groups if its been interpertated confined into two groups then other shabads cannot be reconciled properly with this interpretation, their interpertations ended up being clash course with each other. Also gyani siyana stance does not mean only sikh as many youths believe but rather gyani- bhramgyani (parkosh gyani or apoarkosh gyani) from universal sense. Gyani who holds or see throughs from absolute view is siyana and that gyani can be from any dharma be it muslim, sikh, hindu, buddhist, christian etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact is not insult. I knew you were going to pull this line, thats why I even provided you with references. Secondly, on the matter of satire, which started this debacle we can say even the Bhagat Sahibaans were satirists. Bhagat Namdev mentions Muslims being one-eyed, Kabir proclaims the fallibility of both Islam and Hinduism. Would you consider that as being insulting? If Bhagat Namdev was alive today and again reiterated, 'Muslims are blind' would you argue that he deserves, or deserved, to die because of his thoughts. Wouldn't that be restricting Bhagat Sahib's freedom of speech though? You argue freedom of speech is hypocritical, but would that make any firm believer in it hypocritical?

Fact is not insult. I knew you were going to pull this line, thats why I even provided you with references. Secondly, on the matter of satire, which started this debacle we can say even the Bhagat Sahibaans were satirists. Bhagat Namdev mentions Muslims being one-eyed, Kabir proclaims the fallibility of both Islam and Hinduism. Would you consider that as being insulting? If Bhagat Namdev was alive today and again reiterated, 'Muslims are blind' would you argue that he deserves, or deserved, to die because of his thoughts. Wouldn't that be restricting Bhagat Sahib's freedom of speech though? You argue freedom of speech is hypocritical, but would that make any firm believer in it hypocritical?

Huge difference in a picture of turbaned Prophet with a bomb on it, or a naked Prophet indulging naked with girls. Jaa toon, veehr karda. Learn something from Dhan Guru Sahibs. :angry2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bhul chuk maaf sangat ji... a cartoon came to my attention...in 1984 a hindu women grabbing a turbened man by his dastar and kicking him on the butt signifying him out of the democracy of india....your thoughts please..? Jkv?

really do you want to sink to the level or below of such people or do you actually want to shut them up ? if that had been in a failing rag such as Charlie I wouldn't have give them the benefit of my breath because the attention I would create will give oxygen to a dying patient ...I would happily wait out its demise, not creating a flap to incite the curiousity of others and increase the circulation of that same rabid opinion. Point is these 'brave' cartoonists/writers are anything but , they hide behind the company's letterhead .

But if there was a person who was courageous enough to say the same to my face they would get a warning first , then if they repeated, final warning , then third a smack in the mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went through charlie hebdo archives, some of them are pretty offensive warrant legal law suit, but there are some ones which tells great story of sadist fascist morbid islamic pathetic miserable extremist who is out there to convert forcefully or kill so called infidels. This one below should be printed by true muslims out there to tackle islamic extermism to control extremism in their religion - as pictures pen said thousands words, this one totally set the record straight - how truly extremist raping/misinterpreting their dharam-islam by killing innocent:

This one is good one

BzDJBUoIEAEXGlu.jpg

Also i find this debate pretty interesting (warning bit of swearing in their - use it as at our discretion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I hope we all have learned is that if this mocking was done to Sikh faith we will NOT act this way.besides being cruel n killing innocents It is not effective n has more ppl digging up the cartoon.also it will ruin the life of the revengers n the Sikh ppl will have to face backlash.Rotting in jail, running or dead, will be there lot. While the Sikh nation has to bow head in shame or deny.

YES We SHUD STOP it. But not by using drastic measures that it does not warrent.

Yes we follow Gur Ki Ninda Sunai Na Kaan. And protests are not a suitable answer: we call attention to it which is the last thing we want, we popularize the cartoon and by protesting we are demanding others do something: the magazine n ppl who had no care when publishing it OR common ppl on the streets who don't care or understand. Also it makes us seem whiny intolerant ppl. We may have intolerance to hearing our gurus ninda but we shud not advertise this...most won't understand n to our enemies we announce a weak point on which they can taunt us

So we shud sue magazine it will be quiet affair hopefully ,if we don't make too much noise, n will hurt magazine most n maybe make laws to protect against this in future.N like with the Muslims if we r ignored in courts then...idk but before resorting to 'bhet karo naal kirpan' think: magazine is not person. Yes cartoonist is but he did not 'talk' so we did not listen to nindya.Also it was not personally to u or in front of u but to every Sikh, so response shud not only be ur responsibility n will effect all Sikhs so done carefully. So basically I'm saying use the method that ends the mockery quickest. Because the metaphorical meaning of 'bhet karo sang kirpan' can be end it quickly, shut him up fast.

But no violence!! Yes in past we used violence such as suicide bombs which west cant condone or understand But it was against the likes of Beanta a genocide causer. We seem to not take the order to use violence as a last resort only when all means have FAILED, seriously...

Reading some comments I'm scared, I don't want another Air India incident that we have to deny n rebut to keep our ithihaas blameless n glorious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The thing is that Hindus will only give it the large when in a significant majority and as soon as the numbers turn against them they pretty much give up. The only exception I've seen to this is the Tamil Hindus of Sri Lanka. They also have appalling unity, did the Punjabi, Tamil, Nepali Hindus come to help the Gujaratis? Nope. Yet you had Arabs and Somalians helping the Indian muslims and Pakistanis.  Sikhs historically have always been a minority in India and even greater Punjab so we are used to fighting when the numbers are against us. Just look at how we retaliated against the muslims of UP who heavily outnumber us when they tried to take our land. Even in Hyderabad Sikhs have fought against Muslims who make up a huge amount of the city.   
    • The recommended schedule for Sikhs is to go sleep saying God's name and wake up doing the same:   ਸਉਦੇ ਵਾਹੁ ਵਾਹੁ ਉਚਰਹਿ ਉਠਦੇ ਭੀ ਵਾਹੁ ਕਰੇਨਿ ॥ saudē vāh vāh ucharah uthadē bhī vāh karēn . Whilst going to sleep they utter Lord's glories and praises and when awake they eulogise Him as well. ਨਾਨਕ ਤੇ ਮੁਖ ਉਜਲੇ ਜਿ ਨਿਤ ਉਠਿ ਸੰਮਾਲੇਨਿ ॥੧॥ nānak tē mukh ujalē j nit uth sanmālēn .1. Nanak bright are the faces of those who daily arise early and remember God. p312   You have to sleep the same number of hours anyway. So why not go to sleep early and wake up early? Afterwards, you'll still have the same number of hours to study--there are only 24 hours in a day. If you say it's the same if you do Amrit Vela first and then go to sleep, it's not: If you do it your way, after you wake up, you won't be worshipping, as commanded above. Instead, you'll head to school or whatever. We're supposed to worship after waking: ਗੁਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਅਖਾਏ ਸੁ ਭਲਕੇ ਉਠਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥ gur satigur kā jō sikh akhāē s bhalakē uth har nām dhiāvai . He, who calls himself a Sikh of the Great True Guru, should rise early and meditate on God's Name. p305 Meditate after you rise, Gurbani says.
    • did you hear me mention just girls ? it is both sexes but a longer trend in guys  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use