Images of Mohammed on Images of Mohammed

80 Responses to Images of Mohammed on Images of Mohammed

1. Jim says:

   6/15/2006 at 9:34 am

   Syed,

   Your post made this atheist very tampered because your post is BORING(REALLY) and BORING(REALLY) has a very high place in the list of things that make me go BOIIING in the whole world. Therefore you must be punished badly by MY PET tuatra.

   Reply
2. SABIH says:

   6/15/2006 at 10:32 am

   REDICULOUS
   U JUST SHAME ON UR SELF .MUSLIM RESPECT JEWS & CHRISTIAN’S PROPHITS.

   Reply
3. Meesum Zaidi says:

   6/15/2006 at 11:23 am

   that’s what we need to know, your hate for islam. At one side you talk for freedom of speech and at other side you disturb the freedom of beleief. what a duality EUROPE. wait for the christ to reappear and tell you the truth, then you’ll be having no time to be ashamed of your deeds. Lets respect other’s believes so that they respect our’s. Think patiently.

   Reply
4. Layla says:

   6/15/2006 at 11:34 am

   Syed,

   “Punished badly” is not good. Muslims are not a religion of peace.

   Layla

   HAZART???? Shu hada? Shreeyani ‘hazart’?

   The closest Arabic I can find is hazr ‘estimation, appraisal, guess, riddle’. Judging by the poster’s name, maybe it’s not Arabic, but Urdu language. This punishing stuff is getting pretty tedious though, no matter who threatens it. According to fictional accounts, a form of ‘cat scratch fever’ torture–introducing infection into animal wounds –is used in certain middle eastern dungeons, I’ll spare you the rest of the details of how it’s done.

   Reply
5. Layla says:

   6/15/2006 at 5:41 pm

   Sabih and Meesum,

   How does a cartoon stop your freedom? A cartoon is not a prophet. It is only a picture of a prophet. Your Prophet is dead and in heaven. A cartoon cannot hurt your Prophet.

   Moslems have bombs. Moslems burn embassies. Moslems kill people at weddings. Moslems cut off heads with swords. This is not repect for Allah. This is hate for the people Allah created.

   Reply
6. M00N says:

   8/13/2006 at 11:26 pm

   you must respect the greatest prophet Mohammad

   Reply
7. Anonymous says:

   8/14/2006 at 4:05 am

   Must say, I don’t like the sound of these here BROPHETS coming around punishing brainless people. Are these BROPHETS going to come around and pull out their respirators and feeding tubes? Presumably we’re talking about people on life support here, I mean, since they don’t have brains and all. What is it exactly that the BROPHETS have against them?

   Reply
8. fizcan says:

   9/9/2006 at 4:14 am

   the whole religon concept is not for the 21st century, if not for the most fundamental questions as why humans are on earth and what is the purpose of the civilization i think religon is not serving any essantial purposes,devolped logic and rational of the 21st century can better help the civilization to progress further. main stream media has even started commenting on it more openly as it can be observed in new best seller The davinci code, the whole novel is written on belief that religon is man made entity and that we have written history as proof; i think west and rest are not able to convers on a point properly because both when talking about same issues have entirely different ways at looking the prolem, if we take the Muhammad cartoon issues,21st centuary west considers freedom of speech more important then respecting the faith of Islam,and 14th century islam takes fait of the religon more sacred then the power of freedom of speech, well history shows us that 14th century christens werent as tolerent as they are in modern times, so how could muslims are expected to come to terms with the idea that its alright to joke about your ideal prophets.

   Reply
9. J. Clifford says:

   9/9/2006 at 7:01 am

   Must I respect the greatest prophet Mohammad, Moon? I think that I don’t have to. Let me prove it to you.

   Behold:

   The prophet Mohammad is a coconut.

   See? I don’t HAVE to do anything you say.

   Now, Layla, let’s be balanced here and point out that our own American government has killed people at weddings in both Iraq and Afghanistan as part of its own Christian-motivated (as Bush himself says) War on Terror. There’s enough accusations of brutality to go around to everyone fighting in this pointless conflict.

   Reply
10. Iroquois Honky says:

    9/9/2006 at 11:40 am

    jclifford, the American government is ‘killing people at weddings in Iraq and Afghanistan’? That’s not a very precise statement. Are you referring to collateral damage from bombing? Or those embarrassing surgical strikes against supposed al-Qaeda meetings a few years ago that turned out to be based on locals who used the American military for vengence against rival tribes? Or maybe military actions based on faulty intelligence about al-Qaeda, false information no doubt obtained under torture? You seem to be saying the American military intentionally targets civilians, which I do not believe to be the case. In fact, the opposite seems to be true; when civilians are killed the US government goes out of its way to issue statements saying the target was military.

    Or maybe you are trying to say the al-Zarkawi attack on civilians in Amman’s Jordanian hotels were justified because of something that happened in another country under the command of the American government? That’s like saying there’s a link between Saddam and al-Quaeda.

    When it comes to civilian deaths, I don’t think there is any good reason to shut up. If we are going to hold officials at Guantanamo accountable for their treatment of detainees captured during combat, surely we must hold accountable Islamic fundamentalists who intentionally kidnap and behead civilian prisoners while shouting “Allah is greater”.

    Reply
11. Ralph says:

    9/10/2006 at 3:16 am

    Is it “imprecise” to say that the U.S. military has killed people at weddings in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Well, the people at those weddings were alive before the American bombs hit them. Then they were dead. The bombs killed them, so there you have it.

    Oh, but it was “collateral damage.” I guess that means you didn’t kill someone if you say “collateral damage.” Or at least, you know, not “precisely.”

    Really?

    Timmothy McVeigh called the children he killed in the Oklahoma Federal Building “collateral damage.”

    Is it “imprecise” to say McVeigh killed children in Oklahoma?

    Reply
12. Alan says:

    9/10/2006 at 5:12 pm

    So Ralph is in favor of people with bomb vests walking into major hotels in world capitols and detoning bombs, but not in favor of any method of warfare that doesn’t guarantee 100% no civilian casualties. I suppose by Ralph’s definition, the World Trade Center would be “collateral damage.”

    Reply
13. Jim says:

    9/10/2006 at 5:32 pm

    What a patently ridiculous of piece of emotional attention bait.

    Reply
14. Ralph says:

    9/10/2006 at 8:37 pm

    How do you possibly get that I am in favor of “people with bomb vests walking into major hotels in world capitols and detonating bombs?”

    I neither said nor implied anything like that, of course.

    Alan is just dipping into that sorry bag of lazy arguments the ideological hacks have been using since 9/11: You say something I don’t like but I can’t be bothered to formulate a rational argument against it, so I’ll just accuse you of supporting terrorism.

    It’s getting old.

    Reply
15. Alan says:

    9/10/2006 at 9:19 pm

    It’s hard to figure out exactly what Ralph is trying to say. Is he able to state his position without all the na nanny na na?

    Reply
16. Alan says:

    9/10/2006 at 9:32 pm

    Oh, and I thought the wedding thing turned out not to be true, it was just some propaganda. Like the thing about the kids writing on the bomb. And like the thing early in the war about American soldiers raping Iraqi women, which turned out not to be true either. The pictures get all over the front pages, but the true story, which takes time to research, gets buried in the back pages.

    Reply
17. Ralph says:

    9/11/2006 at 12:29 pm

    Explain to me how you come to the conclusion that I support people with bomb vests bombing hotels, based on anything I said in post 61.

    That’s what I’m trying to say. Just focus on that: ponder for a while what those words might mean.

    If there are words you don’t understand, look them up in a dictionary. “Bomb,” for example, is a thing that explodes, and “hotel” is a place people rent rooms to stay overnight. Odd that those words would trip you up though, considering you used them yourself in post 62. You’re not posting using words you don’t understand, are you?

    Is it the grammar that’s tripping you up? Here’s a couple of hints: In keeping with the conventions of the imperative mood, the agent of the sentence is an implied, but not stated, “You” (i.e. Alan). The pronoun “I” refers to me, Ralph, and the pronoun “you” refers to you, Alan.

    If you’ve got the vocabulary and grammar down, but are still having problems parsing the meaning, let me know where you’re getting hung up.

    But let’s be honest. Forcing me to guide you, one baby step at a time, through the meaning of something so painfully obvious, is an exercise in absurdity. You are being absurd on purpose, because it’s a cheap, easy way to falsely smear me as a supporter of terrorism. You’re not just smearing me, you’re attacking the conventions of rational discourse because they run counter to your ideology.

    Reply
18. ab says:

    10/10/2006 at 11:36 pm

    fuck…..denmark

    Reply
19. Jim says:

    10/11/2006 at 2:13 am

    Well, that’s not as much lube as Poland, but more than Lichtenstein. Make sure it’s waterbased, and that you ask nicely first.

    Reply
20. mix says:

    1/20/2007 at 9:22 pm

    There are some great comments floating about some true too I have to laugh at certain groups self indulgence self promotion self self self I tired of western news services a decade ago and the jews etc will never change there Ideas so let them rot in a box at the bottom of nothing!

    Reply
21. *angel* says:

    4/29/2007 at 1:00 pm

    …well i don’t really no wer 2 start…i guess its cause ive seen way 2 many comments…wat ive realised is that these posting of comments have started 2 turn out as an online vocal fighting session!! i mean every1 wants to gt there point ad then f*** all the other ppl who think differently!!!
    well i c it this way…i c freedom as an illusion we try 2 see it @ the times we want 2 c it…and we leave it @ times we feel bad….
    but 2 tell u the truth…even freedom now-a-days has limits….

    Reply
22. *angel* says:

    4/29/2007 at 1:24 pm

    i cn sit down and look @ the cartoons 4 ages…probably joke about them, bt i no from the bottom of my heart that they r wrong…no one has the right 2 mock other ppls religions, nt under the freedom of speech and nt under any form of freedom…
    if u guys had realised, the cartoon drawings of the prophet mohamad later turned into a contest 2 c who could make him appear the worst…do u call that freedom?

    and the western world is not perfect…in fact…it is wat made arabs wat they r right now…isnt it them who forced the jews onto the palastinian territory? isnt it them who bomed iraq? isnt it them who have imprisoned more then 10000 palastinian civilians whos only crime was walking in the streets? isnt it them who abused prisoners in the abu-ghreeb prison? isnt it them who helped the war on lebanon? and on and on…
    oh…almost forgot…they dd not only attack arabs…but also other..like vietnam,like rascism against blacks………….
    bt even though they do all those things, iwill not drop down to their level and insult their religions because it is just not right… if i keep on writing, i will never finish so wateva…

    Reply
23. The Animist says:

    4/29/2007 at 5:14 pm

    I don’t think that the good people here insult the religion, they insult the extremists who send death threats and try to make everyone adhere to their religious code.

    Reply
24. Jim says:

    4/30/2007 at 7:24 am

    You can write “no one has the right 2 mock other ppls religions, nt under the freedom of speech and nt under any form of freedom…”

    But what makes that true, “angel”? Is it your opinion that makes it right? That it feels right to you? What is the standard by which rights are set in societies? It depends on the society, doesn’t it? In some societies, there are constitutions.

    Yeah, “wateva.” Freedom, schmeedom, blah, blah, blah.

    Reply
25. Tomsnundeno says:

    11/23/2007 at 7:54 am

    Saudi Arabia and Libya were the source of about 60 percent of the foreign fighters
    who came to Iraq in the past year to facilitate attacks.

    Reply
26. IN says:

    3/1/2008 at 3:01 am

    FUKK UU ALL RETARDDSS WHUU THINKK MUSLIMS ARE WWEEERDDD , URR MUMSZ RR WEERDDD GO SEE URSELVESS WHUU THE HELL DO UU THINK U GUYSZ RR AND BESIIDES IN CASE UU HAVVNT NOTICEDD MUSLIMSS BELEEV IN CHRISTT ;; THATSS JUSTT IN CASE UU DIIDNT NOEE COZ UU GUYSZ RR EDIOTSZZ …. U DON SEE MUSLIMSSZ GOIIN AROUNDD DRAWIIN SUM UGLYY ASS COMIIC STRIPSZ BOUTT ANY UTHERR RELIGIONSZ PROPHET ;; JUST SHOWSZ THATT UU GUYYSZ RR SELFFIISH ANIMALSZ WHUU ONLIEE CARE BOUT DEM SLEVS AND DER RELIGIONN !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    GOO DIIEEE ALL OFFF YOUU COZZ AT D ENDD WE’LL B D ONESZ IN HEAVEN WHILE U’LL B IN HELL FORR EVRR

    IIF U DON LIKE IIT GOO JUMPP MUTHR FUKERSZZZ

    Reply
27. IN says:

    3/1/2008 at 3:05 am

    all d ppl whu hatee isllammm goo diieeeeee coz overall dats wat uu deserv tuu diie and nevrr see d worlLdd agenn coz uu hav d biggest heds growin thinkin urr all datt wenn uurr nott ;; use rr all loads ovv shiittt on erthh

    Reply
28. Voltaire says:

    12/15/2008 at 2:40 pm

    Animist, you may be wrong! I could definitely mock Islame, Jehovah’s witness with swords.

    Knock knock
    Who’s there?

    Mohammed’s Witness!

    Wow that’s a really sharp sword! Is that blood dripping from it?

    And people worry about Christians!

    Reply
29. tarek says:

    5/6/2010 at 6:00 pm

    fuck you

    Reply
    • F.G. Fitzer says:

      5/6/2010 at 6:04 pm

      I think that’s a lovely reminder of the way that religion so often “elevates” a conversation, Tarek.

      Reply