Fact checking Mohammad movie: was Mohammad a rapist?

While taking this a bit off topic it does deserve a response because it is loosely related to the current possibility of civil and criminal prosecution related to this film.

Afghanistan and the US did not have an extradition treaty and the US had no authority to demand anything from Afghanistan. Extradition treaties are established between countries to ensure the fair treatment of those accused of a crime. For example, the US could have an extradition treaty with a country but there could be a limitation in that the US cannot impose capital punishment because capital punishment is prohibited by the country extraditing the accused individual.

Lacking an extradition treaty which establishes the conditions for the extradition when a criminal indictment exists the extradition is addressed on a case by case basis to ensure the Rights of the accused. Former President Bush refused to engage in the diplomacy necessary to establish mutually agreeable conditions for the extradition of Osama bin Ladin which would be following "due process of the law" for the extradition under international conventions and law.

We are obviously left to deal with hypotheticals because Bush chose to not follow international laws and customs related to the extradition of Osama bin Ladin. The US, through negotiations, could very probably have induced the Taliban government of Afghanistan to apprehend Osama bin Ladin while the details of bringing him to justice were resolved. It could very well have been that the Taliban government would have consented to a criminal prosecution in the International Court of Justice at the Hague seeing it as a neutral court where justice could be served. Obviously they believed that bin Ladin would be subjected to a kangaroo court if he was turned over to the US directly and that was a valid concern. It's similiar to trying suspected terrorists at GITMO because even I don't believe that the military tribunals are impartial.

In the end it becomes moot because Bush didn't want to bring bin Ladin to justice nor was he willing to comply with our treaty obligations as a member of the United Nations. The American People wanted revenge, not justice, and President Bush provided vigilante revenge and didn't even care that he was attacking the wrong country (no Afghanis nor was the Afghan government involved in the 9/11 attacks).

As this relates to the current situation the Muslims, the vast majority of which are opposed to the violence, would welcome the US addressing the possible civil and criminal prosecution of those responsible for this film. They support the rule of law although the US has a history now of not following the rule of law when Muslims are involved (e.g. GITMO detainees). They are also highly supportive of freedom of speech but we must understand that this movie was offensive, was intended to be offensive, and was created by an anti-Muslim hate group. As Americans we also need to stand up and condemn the religious intolerance by those that created the film. They are no different than the Neo-Nazis that promote hatred in America by exploiting freedom of speech with their invidious propaganda.

 

I would hardly consider a few hundred protestors as being representative of the Egyptian People. Even the Muslim Brotherhood has come out against the violence as have most Muslims around the world. There are over one billion Muslims and overwhelmingly they oppose the violence and rightfully oppose this hate film as well. We should all be opposing the film because it reflects invidious hate-based religious intolerance.

What I find disturbing is that so many seem to support the religious intolerance that this film represents.

 

It must be true then, because 'it is written'...
Dickheads, every last one of them.

 

Not according to the accepted societal norms and mores of that time. Child marriage was an accepted part of Christian culture in the west as well, and a girl in England was expected to be married at 12 years of age, sometimes younger. It is absurd both to condemn the Muslim Prophet for paedophilia, when paedophilia is a psychological dysfunction, as well as trying to apply today's norms and conventions to those which were perfectly acceptable-both in the east and west-a thousand or so years ago.

Some people, including you, really need to get an education.

http://www.dfwx.com/medieval_cult.html#involve children

 

Most people don't support the intolerance, they support his right to express his views. The people don't like his intolerant attitude any more than they like the intolerant attitudes of the people who call America the "great satan"or who rant about the zionist plot, but we respect their right to express themselves. To deny that right is more intolerant than expressing ones belief is.

 

Right now we are about to elect a man whose so-called "Prophet" believed Jesus came to America. I ain't buying it. But, even in the Fundamentalist Baptist Madrassa one of the first questions usually asked is, "What if you have never heard the words of Jesus?"

The answer given by one Fundamentalist Baptist Madrassa preacher makes a hypocrite out of those other Fundamentalist Baptist Madrassa preachers in the same school that claim a Muslim cannot go to heaven.

A question would be to Romney, "why are you not taking on Obama's attack on Free Speech, with greater force, are you afraid your so-called "Prophet" will be blasphemed too?"

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama; Defender of the Faith, but not of our Constitution, which is a violation of his oath of office. Notice, his defense of free speech was a very tiny and insignificant afterthought away from the original Statecraft of his embassy. It had no force of articulation needed for the thin skins.)

Any president can reject such a movie, and denigrate it's beliefs, as a citizen, but as president his oath of office requires that he protect and defend the Constitution of the United States above such offences; instead the Obamanation was a hypocrite denigrating the beliefs of the movie's maker while rejecting all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. And I repeat what I read in a Muslim's book once, "hypocrisy is the most hated of God."

When in the military during Jimmy Cotter Pin we were refused the right to attend a political rally by the opposition, by a cute trick, by being ordered to wear our uniforms that day when out on the town, and, oh, wait for it, the Commander also reminded us that we could not attend a political rally in uniform; we were conscripted for the greater benefit of the "Great Satan." One minister with bad dandruff at the Fundamentalist baptist madrassa thought Cotter Pin was the Anti-Christ; I thought that guy was funny, banging the podium... When the Gubermint's statecraft denigrates our free speech, it is not much different than being conscripted; and as you may know I believe ORDERS to pray a certain way are simply conscription, a means of compulsory enrollment of men for military religous precision, to weed out and punish those not marching in goose stepping lock step to a tune, denigrating the right of man to commune with God on his own turf. Basically, if God can make "be" why would we reject that God can change his mind about a Prophet? The whole New Testament is kind of like changing of mind, which is somewhat illustrated by Abraham bartering with God for Sodomites or for Lut.

Several years ago when attempting a dialog I quoted the New Testament words of Jesus, the Golden Rule, and the Muslim basically asked, "What does Golden Rule have to do with Muslim?" At the time the Wiki only had one sentence from the Hadith saying it was their Golden Rule, and since it was worded on the Saudi website so as to only apply between Muslims, I argued several times that it was an afterthought, and proof the Koran was not legitimate, now the Wiki has several attempts to create one in the Koran, go figure; that is irrelevant though. What is relevant is what the Saudi Muslim said to me, there is no Golden Rule in Islam.

We have verses in the Koran that tell us to keep what was revealed to us, but then when we quote such a verse, usually we are told the New Testament is corrupt and we cannot know what Jesus said. There is no logic applied by the other side as to the logic of the verse, the 100% typical reaction is to move on and ignore any logic. So we are between a rock and a hard place.

Logic though, the heart, is where we have the real connection to God, not some book or some Fundamentalist Baptist Madrassa preacher saying you are all going to hell. The Catholics are going to hell because the sprinkle water instead of REAL Baptism, the Pope is the Whore of Babylon, the Church where the Anti-Christ will rise, see the Omen movies...

Relevant to the discussion, what I would like to see is these verses on a large billboard in Cairo...:

"31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12:31-32&version=NIV

What reaction would be received by the poster?

Certainly we can understand, it is not all just black and white. When Westerners go out of their way to exercise their free speech rights, denied by the Kings, denied by Gubermint approved Churches (see crusades and inquisition), rejected by the Obamanation, a right for which they (Christians) were violently persecuted, and insult the man many of the followers of Politics try to emulate (the Holy Roman Pope, the ONE Great Leader, or some other King "by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith"), it adds fuel to an already lit fire.

The simple fact is, we cannot do away with free speech to placate those that do not believe in a concept that is at the heart of who is a free man and who is a dumb animal and subject of the Boy King Defender of the Faith. Individually we may reject the movie, but we cannot reject the right of free speech as the Obamanation and his Party of Treason has done with forceful language.

Throughout a very long history we were faced with death for blasphemy against a man "the Defender of the Faith" or Politics. When faith is included in Government, there is no separation between faith and politics.

One of the most philosophical and important issues is whether Jesus forgave those that waged war against him, because they were ignorant, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing"--when certainly if God could make him "be," God could send down a host so "they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned"--whether Jesus died on the Cross instead of WAR is relevant. But, hey, how many Muslims reject he was a man who died? There must be poop in heaven from that Old Testament guy who went up in the Chariot of Fire...hopefully they got toilets in the spiritual realm when a Frenchman died. {a little humor}

A constructive and open minded discussion about Jesus, when his forgiveness of the ignorant is rejected, is not what we need. Jesus as a man is not an issue because the trinity is as irrelevant as a Church that does not allow an organ, because Satan is the principality and power of the air, but will allow a piano. Issues of importance deal with treatment of our fellow man, punishment in the hearafter vs. punishment on earth for faith.

The issue at hand is Free Speech, and blasphemy, and violence by Defenders of the Faith not for sword slashes but for words.

The pen is only mightier than the sword, if you have a thin skin and cannot articulate your position. What we need here is a thicker skin, which is why I sometimes go out of their way to insult religion. You see, the Divine Comedy by Dante is a critique on religion; many Popes in Hell there. Many scientists killed by the Church...

Without a thicker skin, the offending word brings murder. It is an indictment against the argument's validity that the right way is clearly distinct from error when violence is the answer to blasphemy of men living or dead. We have a saying about not speaking ill of the dead, but they are not dead if they got a book.

To me the greater cancer to the truth is not offensive words, that penatrate a thin skin, but offence at words that insults real men.

There is a greater need for a constructive and open minded discussion about free speech, the rights of man, its birth with the printing press, when the peasant could then read about forgiveness of blasphemy instead of being spoon fed like a baby only that which maintained the politics of gubermint approved Faith, and its eventual protests against violent Defenders of the Faith.

 

Well, they are colonies, aren't they?

 

You do not have to take a speed reading class at a Fundamentalist Baptist Madrassa to read the English translations in a short period of time; like I did with this guy's software back in Aug 2001:

“I please Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala to help Afghans(Taliban) brothers, Mujaheedins and all muslims and to gave them absolutly victory againest those who attacks.”

You could have read it hundreds of times over, since the last time you told me you had never read it but quoted it.

To me it somewhat insulting to quote out of context without have read the thing.

 

Nonsense. The UN demanded that Afghanistan turn over Bin Laden.

 

Ohhh, my apologies. I thought this was a forum for grown ups. I will remember that next time I read one of your posts.

But if you wish to accuse others of being illiterate, the least you could do is use the proper spelling of words and grammar in the post. Just some advice for next time.

 

Then why else would somebody make a movie like that?

If that's the case, why did the film director...

A) Lie to and take advantage of his actors.
B) Lie about who he was.
C) Make a movie instead of holding an actual televised debate.

Ahh, so he has the right to insult but Muslims don't have the right to be insulted?

You think the protests are only about the video? It goes deeper than that habibi. There are thousands of offensive videos against Muhammad (pbuh) and Islam, this one was just another.

Do you actually think this will make ANYTHING on this planet better?

The people this forum attracts.

 

Absurd not to. Thats why we now prohiit sex with 12 yr olds. We would still be diddling 12 tr olds with your attitude.

 

Don't be stupid dixon, for once in your life. I clearly said-and it obviously eluded you-that judging the socially accepted standards of mediaeval life by today's standards is stupid and pointless-especially as Christians of the period also married their children off as young as 12 years of age. Do try to read what is clearly written.
Are you also aware that, as late as 1875, the age of consent in the United States ranged between 10 and 12 years of age? And you people are whining about mediaeval social mores and standards? http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230 Paragraph 7.

 

Not sure of your point. Would apply to christians as well.

 

Its the way you lash out like angry savages when you are insulted that is the issue..

 

If you can't be bothered to quote my entire post, I can't be bothered to reply to your post.

Fair?

 

OoooooK

.....

 

That's not what I meant, but whatever...

And this reaction is towards more than just an insulting video on youtube.

Which I already said in the next few sentences right after the lone sentence you decided to quote.

That's why it helps to quote entire posts

 

I dont care if its one or a thousand videos. "Its the way you lash out like angry savages when you are insulted that is the issue." And the way all the muslims such as yourself try to justify lashing out like savages.
And the protest had nothing to do with these other videos. In Egypt it was a protest to demand the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman and in Libya it was to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi. Essentially its a pro Al Qaeda demonstration, opposed to our fight against Al Qaeda.

 

Muslims do make movies like this maybe not about Jesus or Moses as they arwe also part of their religon but during the Mohammed caricature affair there was a flood of offensive videos uploaded to Youtube. Apart from that a favourite topic for Muslims is Jews and there is a steady stream of antisemitic products from Muslims. Its just that the reaction is quite different.

 

Who incited violence?

 

Typical Islamist Wahabi or other shade claiming he has proven that which obviously cannot be proven.

 

Criticising relious beliefs is not inciting violence. I am surprised that a Canadian would not know that.

 

Ty - you've once again got it aas - uperds - If you've read any of Abu's previous posts you might have noticed - as I - Margot + thers , can vouch for., Abu is one of the mosts vociferous ant-salafist/ant- Wahabists you can possibly find.

Ty - you've picked on the wrong one there.

tata.

 

Abu has singularly failed to explain any significanct difference between his kind of Islamism and that of Wahabis. Youi are welcome to help him out.