Hundreds Expected for Mohammed Cartoon Contest Outside Phoenix Mosque

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

You don't post often, but you are very respectable. And I do agree with your posting in this thread ( to clarify).

a reply to: Kali74

I never said anything of the sort, perhaps go back and re-read since replies have died down?

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

It was the article (I think) you quoted.. a bunch of instances of non-religious people (such as McVeigh) being passed off as "Christian" I was simply disagreeing with the article..

other than that, I have agreed with your posting in general, you have made some of the best posts in this thread.. tis why I didn't reply to you until you quoted that article.and then, was the article I disagreed with moreso than you.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: marg6043

So again, that is Saudi.

Saudi is not the example of how things are ran in a muslim country.

That place is the birth place of all the extremism we have today, and does so with impunity.
We are so busy complaining about Iran and Iraq that we let the root cause of this all just keep on doing what it is doing.

Uhmmm, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of ISLAM....

Exactly what country is Mecca and Medina in? Oh right, Saudi Arabia.

The birthplace of extremism was Mecca, then it went to Medina, then back to Mecca while a whole lot of people died because they didn't like Mohammed, and he had them killed.

So yes, Saudia Arabia is the birthplace of extremism, since the first day Mohammed took a sword to the first person to kill them because they didn't like him.

Now, isn't that really something to think about?

Tell us, just how many people were killed in those early years? Oh, but you say it was tribalism...so Mohammed was a tribalist? Then is Islam also tribalism?

Wait, yes it is. What tribe was Mohammed from? Quraysh....

Now go with me here, ok. Now pay attention (you've probably already heard it all before)...

The Quraysh tribe was in Mecca in 400 AD and it was a trade center started by Quṣayy ibn Kilāb (called al-Mujammiʿ, “the Unifier”). Hmm, so the Arabs were trading in Mecca that had the ka'aba that allah was already worshiped in....before Mohammed.

OK, with me so far?

Mohammed was born in 570 AD, that's 170 years after and the Arabs were already going on hajj as early as 400 AD. So what Islam really is, it is a tribal political party that the Quraysh controlled long before Mohammed was born. Therefore, Mohammed cannot be the founder of Islam in worshiping Allah, because the Arabs were already doing that for a long time.

Mecca and the Quraysh

Let's go through this again, the Quraysh tribe controlled Mecca in 400 AD, wherein the Ka'aba already the Quraysh had their idol of Allah set up. Other tribes also had theirs in it also. Mohammed cannot be the founder of Islam, because Quṣayy ibn Kilāb beat him to it.

Mohammed was merely the political avenger of the Quraysh tribe forcing all the other tribes to recognize the Allah of the Quraysh.

This is how it works, with me so far?

Quṣayy ibn Kilāb = first Arab dude to control Mecca and the Ka'aba....
Quṣayy ibn Kilāb = member of the Quraysh Tribe
Quṣayy ibn Kilāb = first Arab dude of the Quraysh tribe to worship Allah
Mohammed = second Arab dude to control Mecca and the Ka'aba
Mohammed = member of the Quraysh tribe
Mohammed = second Arab military leader from Quraysh tribe enforcing the tribal politics and religion of the Quraysh tribe.

Therefore it should not matter at all about cartoons of Mohammed, he didn't start Islam at all. Quṣayy ibn Kilāb did.

History is funny, isn't it.

Islam is merely the political arm of the Quraysh tribe. And I can prove this from the Quran...because Quran 106 is called..wait for it..guess what it is....that's right, Quraysh.

Quran 106 (Quraysh) : 1 For the accustomed security of the Quraysh 2: Their accustomed security [in] the caravan of winter and summer 3: Let them worship the Lord of this House 4: Who has fed them, [saving them] from hunger and made them safe, [saving them] from fear.

Islam is nothing more than the tribal political movement of the Quraysh...and where is the Quraysh today? Are there any more Quraysh at all? Seems that if there are no more Quraysh, then the worshipers at the Ka'aba hijacked it.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: OpinionatedB

I never said anything about race, so kinda confused... perhaps, you were replying to someone else?

Edit: This was meant for Kali74... I suppose this has occurred to a few people, ATS getting buggy? I hit reply for Kali74 but it tagged OpinionatedB for some reason?

Ohh.. I don't know if ATS is getting buggy.. but I think my computer is having problems! Your definitely not alone!

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Someone was denying Christians act in extremist ways, and asked for me to prove it... so I dropped the link as an example, I didn't read it nor have any affiliation to that site... my apologies it's content was offensive, I'm a humanist... belief or unbelief, race, national origin none of that matters to me, what ones actions towards another however does matter to me, every one on this planet is my brother or sister; regardless of all of the distinctions society uses that separate us, instead of unite us. It was just to show that Christians do some horrible things in the name of their faith just like every other faith has.

Guess I'm the mediator no one was expecting :p

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

lol.. which in the end was what I was trying to say..

to me though - it is simply the response on each side to those things happening. I personally see a different response from the Christians usually.

This is why we see people who help kids get away from cults and whatnot.. they do exist - but on the Christian side, there is usually an effort to remove your loved one's from the situation.

On the other side, there is conflict. And there really is, you have people who immigrate and raise their children here, but don't want to see those children get away from the culture they immigrated from.

Now, usually that is not much of a problem - as you see that to some degree from all immigrants regardless of religion, but in the Muslim community, the penalties are much more severe, should you break from that culture and tradition.

This shows in the fact that extremism is on the rise here, and that within the Muslim community, at the same time, you have the clash with others getting away from the culture - at any cost or risk to themselves.. so there is conflict - and extremism is largely ignored as a result.

To fight against that, you must protest it with all you have. The protest can come from within the community, or depending on what is happening (ie: extremism causing a conflict with the laws of the country you are in) then it can also come from without.

I see no problem with protest, and I don't think either side in this see's the other as less than human. Its just a matter of standing together upon ground that is common, and talking about the problems that exist. If every time you attempt to have that conversation you get ignored or brushed off, you get louder. That is what protest is about - having your voice heard.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

There's a a phenomenon called auto segregation... where if a group of diverse people show up at a meeting place and do not know anyone else; they will segregate themselves based on race, and sit together in groups of that race, instead of a mix... after all no one knows each other right? So they sit with what they are used too or more comfortable with. It's very bizarre, I am sure you have seen this yourself.

It's directly related to the segregation that once was a part of US history, even people that were not a part of that history can carry hate almost as if it is a tradition in and of itself! That's the tradition that needs to go in society.

The weird thing is, people think their faiths or cultures and traditions are under attack on all sides, and avoid contact because they don't want to lose whatever traditional heritage they identify with. This avoiding of contact or auto segregation, does not improve the situation... because few take the time to appreciate the rich cultural heritage found all over our world. That separation causes fear and hate to linger even in generations far removed. The melting concept of the US is unique... it doesn't mean eroding ones heritage, tradition or culture unless one chooses too through marriage or whatever else, when that occurs it is an interesting mixture of the two and both sides gain something they didn't have before... namely understanding.

When I travel somewhere that is culturally different, I'm not there like it's a zoo... I'm there to immerse into the culture in an attempt to understand it and embrace it, so I can get a sense of what living in such a culture is like. I wouldn't travel abroad and try to find a McDonalds, now if I moved there and felt homesick, I could how see going there would feel comfortable and familiar. Perhaps that's exactly what occurs with immigration, people are looking for a taste of home... so when they seek it out, to feel something familiar... they find a community that feels like family, and it ends up as an accidental segregation.

There are a lot of issues coming up due to this separation in society, fortunately... there are some political reforms happening that are unbiased in nature to remove intolerance out of the system and instill equality, no matter race, gender or religion. Unfortunately, there's an ideology that does not want equality... many of the same people will say well, get out of America if you don't like it. Being part Native American, I can't help but find that silly when someone says that to me... not like it gives me any more rights, but it could give me an excuse to hate Europeans. But that would just be stupid, not a big fan of what's happened to the place, but what's done is done... I'd rather be part of the solution, than part of the problem.

Just because we have the right, or freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should! IMHO if we cared more about how are actions afected other people instead of trying to stir up trouble, we would have harmony in the world! a reply to: woodwardjnr

It's over people. No one got hurt.

His main message was that if they must practice their religion, they should do it in their own house. To have a public place of worship, in his opinion, is to infringe upon his religous right to worship where he does.

If he does.

Most people here sided with the Muslims simply because they handled themselves maturely and respectfully. They sided wirh their behaviour, not their religion. All the other side accomplished was to alienate themselves from the 1st and 2nd amendment proponents who handle themselves in the same way that the people being protesred against handled themselves.

He gave 2 people who submitted drawings 100 dollars a piece, and then said that he now has to go into hiding because of death threats from ISIS.

No one really believes him. He comes across as an attention seeking 2 bit loser.

All I know is, that wherever he goes into hiding to......he needs to stay there. This city doesn't need him.

originally posted by: Dianapax
Just because we have the right, or freedom to do something, doesn't mean we should! IMHO if we cared more about how are actions afected other people instead of trying to stir up trouble, we would have harmony in the world! a reply to: woodwardjnr

And Amen.

Well said.

a reply to: reldra

I don't see anything wrong with having a cartoon contest outside of a mosque. If there is a terrorist attack on them, it is still the terrorists' fault that they assaulted the artists.

Art is supposed to be offensive, it is supposed to point out issues in society (in this case violent Muslims over-reacting to cartoons being drawn of Muhammed).

I couldn't agree more! Live by the golden rule! "Do unto others, as you would have done to you"a reply to: reldra

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: damwel

Yea whatever man, because I don't have freedom of speech on ATS I can't lambast you until you walk away in shame. Fortunate you, I never said you don't have a right to your convictions, as I do mine. Unfortunately, if I express my feelings for your convictions I'll be banned from ATS. But if I caught you in the public talking your mess, I'd have a mouthful back to say,you can put your bottom dollar on that. No violence just words.

I have to wonder what the narrative would have been had the restaurant where the after party was planned not closed and a hundred muslims in camo armed with semiautomatic rifles decided to protest outside.

Please note there's actually no religious reason to object to these cartoons. Qur'an forbids making icons, graven images to worship, but for example Persian Muslims have a very long tradition of represental art, including respectful depictions of Prophets.

The tradition is entirely cultural. Allah's Apostle, peace to him and his family, asked that Muslims not make holy images of him, as man-god image-worshiping was pagan business, and to worship him or images of him is extremely un-Islamic. The bikers are not worshiping him, obviously. That would be an offense to Islam. "I'm evoking my right to draw cartoons people really don't like" isn't.

So in reality, the only offense is "you're being offensive on purpose" and I still feel strongly this argument applies to any protest, and that capitulating to it would proscribe freedom of expression in a way not just incompatible with the admirable ideals of the American Constitution, but with Islam itself. If we cannot stand up for the absolute right of the People of the Book to do nothing more than make marks on paper, we are utterly failing to separate what is truly Islam from pride, arrogance, and petty rage.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
I have to wonder what the narrative would have been had the restaurant where the after party was planned not closed and a hundred muslims in camo armed with semiautomatic rifles decided to protest outside.

Can you picture the ok coral.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: DelMarvel
I have to wonder what the narrative would have been had the restaurant where the after party was planned not closed and a hundred muslims in camo armed with semiautomatic rifles decided to protest outside.

Can you picture the ok coral.

We have the right to bear arms---but legally and realistically that's got to be with some limitation. I don't know where the line is but a situation like this was really only a backfire or a loose screw away from a potentially horrible outcome.

All I can say is that if there was a guy with a shaved head and an SS insignia T-shirt waving an AR-15 and screaming obscenities outside my house, I'd call the cops and expect them to make him stop and I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Americans would feel the same way.

I believe everyone has the right to believe the way they want, to think the way the want, to worship the way they want.

Also believe in the first amendment right to peaceably assemble, to free speech, and freedom of religion.

I have a suspicion that most of the mosques, including the one in Phoenix have been infiltrated by government spies, and so they know what is going on inside.

I remember back in 2000, that is 15 years ago, I had several Muslim workmates, we worked at a company that translated. I actually learned a little Arabic from them while we talked.

Now one of these Muslims was a very, what is the word, strict one. He lived by the law of Allah. The others ones pretty much were screwballs like most Christians. They told me they knew getting drunk was bad, and having immoral sex, according to their teachings but they didn't follow it. They were secularized Muslims, you could say.

But this other fellow, the pious one he gave me some pamphlets he said were written by this well respected Muslim from somewhere in the middle east, it is too long ago to remember.

I told him I'd take them and read them, as I was interested in what they had to say. And because I'm not a hypocrite.

Well, I was reading through them (they were in English) and got to the part where it is wrong to lie, but if it is to an infidel, or to deceive an enemy, then Allah saw nothing wrong with it.

Well, I brought the pamphlet back to work the next day and talked with him about what was written about lying, and he agreed with it.

And I disagreed with him, and said, I didn't need to know anything further about the religion, because if they are given permission to lie, you can't believe anything they say.

Then opened my Bible and shared this passage with him:

(Proverbs 6:16-19) . . .There are six things that Jehovah hates; Yes, seven things that he detests: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart plotting wicked schemes, and feet that run quickly to evil, 19 A false witness who lies with every breath. . .

I said, 'notice, these things that God hates. Among them he mentions deception, three times. He hates a lying tongue. So it is not proper to lie, not even to an enemy to deceive them.'

His reasoning was that the Bible must be wrong. But I reasoned with him, things I won't share right now here, with the Koran, which he believes to be correct, that the Bible cannot be wrong. And he couldn't believe I used his Koran to prove the Bible isn't wrong.

At first he thought I was being presumptuous, but after several talks he told me that even I would convince him to convert to being a servant of the true God Jehovah.


Here are just a few more, among many references in just Proverbs about liars:


(Proverbs 13:5) . . .The righteous one hates lies. . .

(Proverbs 19:1) . . .It is better to be poor and walk in integrity Than to be stupid and speak lies. . .

(Proverbs 29:12) . . .When a ruler pays attention to lies, All his servants will be wicked. . .

(Proverbs 30:8) . . .Remove untruth and lies far from me. . .

a reply to: WarminIndy

That's the biggest load of crap I've read here in ATS.

Uhmmm, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of ISLAM.... 

Liar. Saudi Arabia didn't exist 1400 years ago.

Islam is merely the political arm of the Quraysh tribe. And I can prove this from the Quran...because Quran 106 is called..wait for it..guess what it is....that's right, Quraysh. 

That verse was directed at the Quraysh tribe and suddenly Quraish owns the Quran as a political arm?