While attacking faiths like Scientology and Christianity might stir up some controversy, poking fun at Islam is like pissing on a bee hive. Maybe this is why Parker and Stone have stayed away from attacking it a lot. They consistently portray Jesus, but only once portray Mohamed. Portraying Mohamed, of course, is not allowed in the Muslim faith, but what many people don’t realize is that any prophet of Islam is not allowed to be depicted, and Jesus is a Muslim prophet. In a sneaky way, SP has always mocked Islam, even if they didn’t know it.
The one time they actually did portray Mohamed was in the episode “Super Best Friends”. He was part of the super best friends, had the superpower of fire, and had to help destroy a giant Abraham Lincoln. To everyone’s surprise, no one seemed to care and this episode went unnoticed to the waiting bee hives of “fundamentalist” Muslims.
What really stirred the nest was the epic two-parter in season 11 entitled “Cartoon Wars.” This episode was a reaction to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. In this episode, Family Guy is planning on airing an image of Mohamed which throws American’s into a state of fear that the Muslim world will retaliate. Their solution? They bury their heads in the sand to show the Muslims that they didn’t want to watch it.
But Kyle stands up for free speech and in a touching speech where he says “If you don’t show Mohammed, then you’ve made a distinction of what is okay to poke fun at, and what isn’t. Either it’s all okay, or none of it is,” convinces the President of Fox to air the episode. Coincidentally, Comedy Central censored SP’s image of Mohamed in fear of a Muslim retaliation. Parker and Stone used this censoring as meta-humour by showing a black screen saying “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Muhammad on their network.” Kyle’s plea to the network executive was the exact wording of Parker and Stone’s plea to the president of Comedy Central.
The censoring they were making fun of in their episode actually happened to the show itself, only concreting their point that the only reason we don’t depict Mohamed is because we’re scared of violent reactions. At the very end of the episode SP shows Jesus defecating on President Bush; therefore mocking the general American public by showing how backwards it is that they can show the prophet in the hearts of most Americans defecating on the American President but not a simple image of Mohamed.
This two-parter ideally sums up SP’s view on religion and free speech. The theme was primarily critiquing the West’s response to Muslim rioting, but it was much more than that. It was a controversial episode thats message played itself out in the controversy it caused. A speech by the character Stephen gets their message across perfectly,
“Freedom of speech is at stake here, don’t you all see? If anything, we should all make cartoons of Mohammed, and show the terrorists and the extremists that we are all united in the belief that every person has a right to say what they want! And if we aren’t willing to risk what we have, then we just believe in free speech, but we don’t defend it.”
If you bury your head in the sand, like the Americans in SP, then you’re not defending free speech. Parker and Stone risked their lives by depicting Mohamed in the name of free speech.
In conclusion, one things is for sure when it comes to SP, nothing that’s held sacred is safe from being challenged. If you want to bury your head in the sand like the Americans in SP then you’re just someone who believes in free speech, but doesn’t defend it. Kudos South Park, you are true champions of one of our most cherished civil rights, free speech.
Afterword,
SP has also critiqued Judaism, Mormonism, and even Atheism. However, I felt their depictions didn’t warrant their own sections in this post. In a future post I will tackle these three together.
Part 1 – Scientology
Part 2 – Christianity
Citations for all three posts
Arp, Robert. “South Park and Philosophy: You Know I Learned Something Today.” Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
David, Koepsell. “Blasphemy and South Park.” Lecture, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2007.
Hanley, Richard. “South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating.” Chicago: Open Court Press, 2007.
Southparkstuff.com. 1 November, 2007. <http://www.southparkstuff.com/south_park_downloads/episode-related_downloads/south_park_scripts >
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Tyler Handley
- Great article on the importance of Net Neutrality
- Facebook is the new NWO (not the wrestling alliance)
- All Action. No Reason. Starring Michael Bay.
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Value of the Printed Word
- Once an Etiology: a short rant on the Tree of Life
- Beautiful
- Two Ways of Looking at the World
- The Old Africa is a Country Mistake…by an “Almost” Vice President
- Oh how so very true
- Teen Hangs Herself Over Ghost
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
ASSASSINATION OF POETS – The Authentic Sunnah of Suppressing Freedom of Speech in Islam
POETS WERE MOHAMMED’S FIRST TARGETS
Poets were the journalists and intellectuals of their day. Mohammed’s actions showed he believed in “state-controlled media”
Ishaq:597 “When the Apostle returned to Medina after his raid on Ta’if, word spread that he had killed some of the men who had satirized him. The poets who were left, fled in all directions.”
UQBA BIN ABU MUAYT (This poet and journalist of his time lost his freedom of expression through decapitation. Removing the seat of the intellect is the sign of a mind-control cult.)
Uqba harassed and mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him (cf. Sura 83:13). He was captured during the Battle of Badr in AD 624, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” Uqba cried with anguish. “Hell,” retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.
A DEFENSELESS WOMAN MURDERED WHILE ASLEEP
This woman wrote a poem asking Moslems to develop a conscience.
Ishaq: 676 A poetess wrote a poem: “(To Muhammed’s companions),’you obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said. ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’”
Her poem was well-directed. Mohammed had no conscience and didn’t want anyone to see that he was running a mafia-like organization.
MOHAMMED’S IDEA WAS FREEDOM FOR HIM TO INSULT HIS OPPONENTS.
Muhammad ordered poets of his own to attack with words his opponents and said that the archangel Gabriel would be with them (Bukhari, Military Expeditions, vol. 5, nos. 4123-4124; 4196). Muhammad allowed friendly poets to insult his enemies, but they were unable to kill him or his poets in revenge. The insults go only one way–Muhammad’s way. How is this freedom of expression? It is gangsterism at its worst. The Sunna of Allah’s messenger is to murder critics. How does this address “freedom of expression” or the Golden Rule? Modern Moslems are obliged to follow Mohammed’s callous example, but if their conscience does not permit this, they should leave Islam.
MODERN MOSLEMS APPROVE OF TERROR TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH:
On Saturday July 2, 2005, five days before four suicide bombers killed 52 people on London Transport, Abu Izzadeen said to a group of followers that Muslims must “instil terror into the hearts of the kuffar (non-Muslims).” He also said: “I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist.”
The article states: “At the time of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) there were individuals like these who dishonored and insulted him upon whom the Islamic judgement was executed. Such people were not tolerated in the past and throughout the history of Islam were dealt with according to the Shariah. Ka’ab ibn Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammad ibn Maslamah for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his words, Abu Raafi’ was killed by Abu Ateeq as the Messenger ordered in the most evil of ways for swearing at the prophet, Khalid bin Sufyaan was killed by Abdullah bin Anees who cut off his head and brought it to the prophet for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his insults, Al-Asmaa bintu Marwaan was killed by Umayr bin Adi’ al-Khatmi, a blind man, for writing poetry against the prophet and insulting him in it, Al-Aswad al-Ansi was killed by Fairuz al-Daylami and his family for insulting the Messenger Muhammad (saw) and claiming to be a prophet himself.”
“Shortly after these incidents the people began to realize that insulting the Messenger of Allah (saw) was not something to be taken lightly and that by doing so would mean that you would be killed for it, a concept that many have seem to forgotten.”
“The insulting of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. This is the Sunnah of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able to execute. The response of the Muslims all over the world shows us the inability to deal with such people, the kuffar are attacking our Messenger and are allowed to get away with it whilst the Muslims have no power to do anything about it. The leaders of the Muslim world have no care for the deen of Islam as they are busy cementing their seats content with their power and wealth. Where are the Muhammad ibn Maslamah’s of our ummah who will?” – Abu Izzadeen, British terrorist
THE CONVENIENT CONSCIENCE OF MOHAMMED
“It is remarkable that tradition attributes Muhammad’s most cruel acts to divine order (commandment), namely the siege of Qaynuqa, the murder of Kab, and the attack upon Qurayzah. Allah’s conscience seems to be more elastic than that of his creatures.”…..Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the prophet said the morning after the murder (of Kab Ashraf), “Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on.”-quoted from “Muhammad and the Jews of Medina” [2], page 113: Wensinck, an Islamic scholar.
MURDERING CIVILIANS IN CITIES WHERE THERE ARE CRITICS OF ISLAM IS OK: HEAD OF ISLAMIC HISTORY IN LONDON
Responding to questions about the terrorist attack on London, a Muslim scholar in the British capital asserted Islam makes no distinction between civilians and military targets.
“The term ‘civilians’ does not exist in Islamic religious law,” said Hani Al-Siba’i, head of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies in London.
Al-Siba’i, in an interview with the Arab news channel al-Jazeera, elaborated, “There is no such term as ‘civilians’ in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not.”
Dar Al-Harb refers to the Muslim concept of the world being divided into two “houses,” the House of Islam and the remaining territories, the House of War, or Dar Al-Harb.
“If al-Qaida indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it,” he said. “It rubbed the noses of the world’s eight most powerful countries in the mud.”
ONE OF THE MOST OBVIOUS SIGNS THAT YOU ARE IN A CULT IS THAT YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO LEAVE IT
Bukhari:V9B84N59 “When the Prophet died, Arabs reverted to disbelief. Umar said, ‘Should we fight these people?”‘ Bakr said, ‘By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakat, as Zakat is the right to be taken from property according to Allah’s Orders.
Tens of thousands of dissenting Arabs were murdered by Abu Bakr’s orders. Their only crime was disagreeing with Mohammed and wishing freedom of thought.
THE DUAL ETHICS OF ISLAM PRECLUDE THE GOLDEN RULE
Islam has one set of rules for itself and another for the kufaar, who are inferior to Moslems according to Islam’s source texts. Islam’s subtext of duality and submission are not compatible with equality and the Golden Rule.
From the representative sample quotations above, any reasonable person will be able to make up their own mind whether or not Islam is based on the Golden Rule and whether or not it is compatible with freedom of expression. The above quotes are not conjectures, but quotes from Islam’s most authoratative texts.
1) You asked for evidence. There it is chapter and verse.
2) Now you ignore the evidence. That is the Fallacy of Exclusion. Evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is merely excluded from consideration.
3) When the evidence is overwhelming against you, commit the Fallacy of Changing the Subject, by attacking the person (me) instead of the proof.
4) I am delighted you are not without a conscience like Mohammed or Abu Izzadeen, but I am sure you realize your idol wants other Moslems to murder you for being half-hearted and watered-down in your beliefs. You will not join the caravan and attack the ritually impure kufaar. You have been affected with the anti-Islamic doctrine of the Golden Rule. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
5) Where is the Golden Rule in the Koran?
“When the evidence is overwhelming against you, commit the Fallacy of Changing the Subject, by attacking the person (me) instead of the proof.”
Thats known as ad hominem, Standing
“1) You asked for evidence. There it is chapter and verse.”
Which were not relevant to the subject at hand. You copy pasted some horribly long diatribe, without even editing it to fit the need for the discussion.
You should learn to redact and summarize.
“2) Now you ignore the evidence. That is the Fallacy of Exclusion”
Right – you wish for me to argue point by point something you didn’t even bother to write yourself. You know what, I should copy and paste some random 10 page text I found online and insert it as an “argument”. Yeah, that makes total sense.
Being long winded is not a virtue.
“3) When the evidence is overwhelming against you, commit the Fallacy of Changing the Subject, by attacking the person (me) instead of the proof.”
Again, you think too highly of yourself. No ones attacked you – I was mocking your supposed “credentials”, so you did the insane thing of copying a 4,000 word document, which didn’t even address the points I made, and expect me to waste time challenging every single point. Right – thats very “scholarly” of you.
My response to your “rebuttal”: tl; dr.
Phew, that’s good to hear.
You should use gmail, its spam filter is amazing.
Amazing! You are the first new-age, post-modernist Moslem I have encountered! As you know, post-modernism takes a position above the debate by retreating into subjectivity, or as they prefer to call it, “intuitionism”. This is an admission that they have no rational explanation for what they are doing. In this way, a post-modern Moslem can pick-and-choose elements from Islam (the Fallacy of Exclusion) that are to his taste and incorporate them with esoteric elements from New Age books. This cafeteria Islam makes it possible to simply ignore (read: “exclude”) the 61% of the Koran, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadiths that advocate hatred, murder and repression of the kufaar. Ignoring Islam’s core dual ethics “makes it go away” and the mind is no longer troubled by the onerous, unpleasant and “wet” aspects of the duty of jihad, subjugation of kufaar, the need to avoid social friendships with kufaar, etc. This is totally, intellectually dishonest, but intellectual dishonesty is not troublesome to the post-modern mind. The brilliant post-modern response to a cogent argument is “whatever”. In other words, the Fallacy of Exclusion + Slothful Induction + the post-modern ironic sneer. You are playing card tricks with yourself and believing it is magic.
It is now my turn to be amused. Anticipating your lazy approach to knowledge, I initially gave no references, so you would not have to work (four-letter word). When you asked for evidence from the Hadiths, I provided only some of the texts available (some of the most evil ones) referring to the authentic Islamic method of thought control: murder. Assassination and murder of those who disagree is the Sunna of Allah’s Messenger. The Hadiths and Sira describe a figure with the ethics of a mafia godfather. Your response was exactly what I expected: laziness. Too much work, too many references, blah, blah, “whatever”. Touch the channel changer. You didn’t bother to read these texts and you certainly didn’t think about them. Why bother learning or thinking, when emptiness and laziness are instantaneous? This is the typical Islamic “spoon-fed” approach of taqlid where the teacher has all the answers and the pupil behaves as “a dead body”, the mind entirely in neutral. In your case, you have incorporated the post-modern sneer with this lethargic self-distraction.
Your debating technique boils down to “yes-it-is-no-it-isn’t”, plus a sneer. The lazy man’s approach. Maybe it works with your friends; maybe they are just being polite.
You seem to want me to make it easy for you to win the debate by boiling down a presentation of irrefutable and very complex forensic analysis. Your response is: Ah, c’mon, just let me win, because I’m cute. You cannot win through sloth or through the search for “entertainment”. Logical argument is hard work and obviously it is too exhausting for you. Go watch some cartoons on television, but not ones about your terrorist idol. Pretend you didn’t see the proof of Islam’s core terrorism and dream on.
Mohammed said, “I have been made victorious through terror”, not “I have won through loving my neighbour as myself.”
Whatever you are doing in your private life, it is not “real”, dualistic Islam. It is “cafeteria” post-modern spirituality. You are a living example that Islam’s dual ethics and call for the world to submit to Moslems and be their slaves do not work in the Global Village. Islam is a total failure as a political philosophy and all Islamic states have quietly recognized this, except for the Talibans in Afghanistan. The world reacted with horror to their real-Islam atrocities. Ordinary Moslems recognize that the Golden Rule is the only answer for getting along in a nuclear age. But the Golden Rule was left out of Allah’s perfect book. How could this be? Ordinary Moslems know in their heart that the Golden Rule is the right way to treat the kufaar. They break the Islamic rule against “innovation” and bring the Golden Rule into a subjective, personalized Islam of their own invention. This is what you have done. It is very, very dishonest.
Uganda, Lord’s Resistance Army
Hello everyone
I am not a scholar of islam although I wish I could be. In the Quran it is stated that (chapter 9 verses 5 and 6)
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
You just take out the clauses which you please and leave the rest . This chapter was revealed when the muslims were going to fight with the kuffar in Mecca after the disrespected the peace agreement between them and the muslims .
and in chapter 5 verse 32
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
it did not say that if you killed a pious muslim it is as if you killed the whole of humanity, it says if you slew a person regardless of his faith .
I appreciate your participation by proposing this very fine Koranic passage. Koran 9:5 alone is held to have have abrogated as many as 100 pacific (or seemingly pacific verses). It perfectly illustrates Islam’s twin core doctrines of dual ethics and submission.
In the opinion of the respected tafsir writer, Ibn Kathir, the protection in the passage you quoted only applies to a “believing soul” of Islam or one protected by Allah…kufaar are ipso facto not protected.
The tafsir of Ibn Kathir (on this Koranic passage) makes it perfectly clear that only those who believe correctly (Moslems) are protected and those who are guilty of incorrect belief may be killed:
“(And if anyone saved a life…) means, he refrains from killing a soul. Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah’s statement,
“(It would be as if he killed all mankind. . .) means, “Whoever kills one soul that Allah has forbidden killing, is just like he who kills all mankind.” Sa`id bin Jubayr said, “He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.” In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah,
“(It would be as if he killed all mankind,) “He who kills a believing soul intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, He will become angry with him, and curse him, and has prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all people, his punishment will still be the same.” Ibn Jurayj said that Mujahid said that the Ayah,
“(and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) means, “He who does not kill anyone, then the lives of people are safe from him.”
Further to the above tafsir, many passages clarify that killing disbelievers is not, in itself, a crime. This is confirmed in Tabari, e.g., “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us…” Tabari IX:69. In fact, many verses in the Koran order the killing of various kinds of disbelievers (33:61, 4:76, 4:89-91, 8:12, 9:41, 9:5, 9:29, 61:11, etc.). Believers must honour their duty to Allah and fight the disbelievers in battle, or be punished in hell (2:216, 8:15-16, 9:39). Although the Koran explicitly forbids the murder of Muslims (4:93), the Koran does not contain a similar statement that forbids the killing or murder of non-Muslims.
The passage you proposed perfectly illustrates Islam’s idea of who is the enemy in jihad and how they should be treated. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam — unless they preferred to let themselves be killed.
Key parts of 5:32, when included, change the meaning dramatically, actually recommending the killing of non-Muslims in a wide variety of circumstances. The passage actually counsels execution for the crime of disagreeing with Mohammed.
Therefore, this passage perfectly illustrates Islam’s core doctrines: dual sets of ethics and the submission of the kafir to the Moslem in the master/slave relationship. The imposition of the master/slave relationship on the kufaar through coercion is a complete rejection of the Golden Rule.
The key word in your argument is “guilty”. Those who are “guilty” are under a death sentence. The Koran never tires of explaining who is guilty and deserves the death penalty: the kufaar are “guilty of disbelief”(45:31, 83:29) and deserve the death penalty. The crime of incorrect belief (fitna) is worse than the crime of murder and thus all kufaar have automatically incurred a death sentence. Moslems who no longer believe in Islam should also be executed for this same crime of dissent. This thought-control aspect (through capital punishment) reveals that Islam supports its doctrine by force, rather than by rational argument. Depriving people of their freedom of thought through death in no way expresses the Golden Rule.
The Koranic doctrine of jihad begins with the justification of disallowing anyone from disagreeing with Mohammed. Kafirs are “the vilest of animals” because they do not agree with Mohammed, they are “guilty” of disbelief (45:31, 83:29) – the worst crime, on the side of the Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); “evil” (16:27, 2:91, 2:99); the “wrong-doers” (2:254, 5:45); the “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); hypocrites (4:61); “unclean” (9:28). As for whether non-Muslims are civilians, the Koran is not even clear that non-Muslims are fully human. Instead, the disbelievers are the “worst of created beings” (98:6); “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55); “the worst beasts in Allah’s sight” (8:55), “apes” and/or “pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166), and so on. Verse 60:4 says followers of Allah will hate the disbelievers forever, unless the disbelievers come to believe in Allah only. This is a thorough demonization of disbelievers, together with the conception of disbelief as the worst possible crime. Pious Muslims easily grasp that the kufaar are guilty of wrong belief and corruption on earth and war against Allah and that jihad is required to correct the situation. The first duty of the pious Moslem is to remove the kafir’s freedom of expression and the second is to use all means to eradicate kafir culture. To reject jihad, is to reject Islam.
The dualistic doctrines of the “kafir” and of “jihad” entirely bar the application of the unitary Golden Rule by Moslems. To apply the Golden Rule, Moslems will need to remove 61% of the ayas in the Koran. Both the letter and spirit of Islam entirely exclude the Golden Rule.
this crazy show on youtube called JFC (Jesus Fucking Christ) did an animated version of Mummahad with a bomb on his head at some crazy religious council.
pretty balsy.
http://www.youtube.com/user/jfenc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_z532vg0fo&feature=PlayList&p=0AD867FC76BC0555&index=3
Wow.
that’s a TON of comments. sheesh.
umm. i just have a simple opinion. everyone has the freedom of speech but as humans, we do have to respect another’s belief. That is, after all, how one gets respect. Also, just because we have freedom of speech doesn’t mean we should abuse it.
america’s constitution (if i am not wrong) has been based on an individual’s basic rights. however, in many cases, such as under the patriot act, these rights can be taken away by the government and therefore an absolute right (freedom of speech, religion, etc.) becomes a limited right. thus you cannot always use the freedom of speech as an excuse.
on the contrary, even if another person does something offensive, the offended party should not go crazy and RESPECT the first party’s freedom of speech.
but all i would say is it is better to not abuse your own right and make another feel uncomfortable. however, if you are offended by someone, try and look the other way.
i am a Muslim but I will not go into the details of my religion. Those who wish to seek the truth can: The Qur’an is not extensive (as the Torah) nor does it have many different versions (as the Bible). If you really are curious about Jihad and the true teachings of the Prophet and the religion, I would suggest you read the translation yourself.
Peace.
Well, compared to numerous other countries (and I mean a lot), USA’s freedom of speech has more perks. You can’t be jailed for denying the holocaust or criticizing your own country (take that Europe). The Patriot Act allowed us to arrest anyone suspected of being terrorists or having ties to them. However, after being found unconstitutional, we don’t allow wiretaps. But many countries Europe still practice this anyway without having to call it a “patriot act”.
I respect Muslims and I respect Europe. I even respect terrorists to some degree. But I don’t tolerate fascism. Respect is a courtesy, but not a requirement. If I don’t agree with another person’s belief or philosophy, I think its my right to speak against it or for it if I feel its the right thing to do.
Martin Luther King spoke against racism. Galileo spoke for science against religion. Antoine Condorcet and Olympe de Gouges spoke for women’s suffrage. All of these people and many more spoke against the majority. Does that make them wrong for not respecting others beliefs?
Dear Chris,
Islam is Arab racism, cultural and political supremacism. If you are not a Muslim you should be slain, enslaved or pay protection money to live under Islamic dictatorship. This is FASCISM, make no mistake.
You said, ‘I don’t tolerate fascism.’
There is no free expression under fascism or Islamofascism. No Islamic country has free speech. Do you think there is an underlying explanation or is it merely coincidence, in your opinion?
Muslims give no respect to anyone who disagrees with Mohammed, that includes you. How do you feel now?
Zayclo,
You have no facts to support your point of view. All the facts contradict your empty assertions. Sunnism does use taqiyya. 100%