PDA

View Full Version : This week, the United Nations will consider criminalizing Blasphemy. [Islam Thread]



Dark Flare
September 24 2012, 12:45:21 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/world/push-to-call-blasphemy-a-crime-20120922-26dlu.html

Zeekar
September 24 2012, 12:46:35 PM
Thats beyond ridiculous.

Devec
September 24 2012, 12:55:53 PM
Title is misleading. An organization called the Organisation of Islamic Co-Operation has, according to the article, tried to push this mandate for years. So nothing new there other than it becoming relevant once again due to the whole movie drama.

My question, not knowing the extent of the power of the United nations, would it actually be possible for them to create such a law and force countries within the UN to apply this law.

Dark Flare
September 24 2012, 01:12:37 PM
Title is misleading. An organization called the Organisation of Islamic Co-Operation has, according to the article, tried to push this mandate for years. So nothing new there other than it becoming relevant once again due to the whole movie drama.

My question, not knowing the extent of the power of the United nations, would it actually be possible for them to create such a law and force countries within the UN to apply this law.

How is it misleading? The UN is this week considering the proposal. That seems pretty much to be what the title says.

Joshua Foiritain
September 24 2012, 01:22:30 PM
Title is misleading. An organization called the Organisation of Islamic Co-Operation has, according to the article, tried to push this mandate for years. So nothing new there other than it becoming relevant once again due to the whole movie drama.

My question, not knowing the extent of the power of the United nations, would it actually be possible for them to create such a law and force countries within the UN to apply this law.

How is it misleading? The UN is this week considering the proposal. That seems pretty much to be what the title says.
Title implies the UN wants to implement it, not that an outside organization has requested it and the UN is simply considering it. (as they may be required?) I have no idea how important the fact that its being considered really is, perhaps the UN is required to consider all requests made or perhaps they are actually seriously considering it.

On a related note; Is there even a set definition of what blasphemy actually is/covers? For example if blasphemy became illegal and i said "God doesnt exist" would i then be committing a crime?


My question, not knowing the extent of the power of the United nations, would it actually be possible for them to create such a law and force countries within the UN to apply this law.
Ill second this, i have no idea but am quite curious.

Devec
September 24 2012, 01:30:18 PM
Title is misleading. An organization called the Organisation of Islamic Co-Operation has, according to the article, tried to push this mandate for years. So nothing new there other than it becoming relevant once again due to the whole movie drama.

My question, not knowing the extent of the power of the United nations, would it actually be possible for them to create such a law and force countries within the UN to apply this law.

How is it misleading? The UN is this week considering the proposal. That seems pretty much to be what the title says.
Title implies the UN wants to implement it, not that an outside organization has requested it and the UN is simply considering it. (as they may be required?) I have no idea how important the fact that its being considered really is, perhaps the UN is required to consider all requests made or perhaps they are actually seriously considering it.

This was my line of thought, but consider could also be seen as if they are willing to hear them out on the issue. They will listen to their case because the bloc sees this new outrage as a perfect opportunity, which it is. So in that context they are actually considering the issue, but it would most likely get sweeped of the table. Still they are allowed to make a case, in that light anything that can be brought forward to the UN and discussed is considered.

Hel OWeen
September 24 2012, 04:54:07 PM
On a related note; Is there even a set definition of what blasphemy actually is/covers? For example if blasphemy became illegal and i said "God doesnt exist" would i then be committing a crime?


Here in Germany, we (still) have blasphemy law (German) (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__166.html). Letting aside the fact that I personally think that's pretty outdated, "blasphemy" as defined there could equally well be handled by other/similar laws. You could be sanctioned, if what you do is "insulting in a way that (reactions to it) may disrupt public order" ([...] in einer Weise beschimpft, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören.)

So the real definition of what blasphemy is, is omitted.

Rans
September 24 2012, 04:58:22 PM
No, the UN doesn't really have the power to vote on such an issue or even try to think about enforcing it on member countries.

Zeekar
September 24 2012, 04:59:56 PM
No, the UN doesn't really have the power to vote on such an issue or even try to think about enforcing it on member countries.

UN has in reality 0 power. Without support of USA/China/Russia no mayor deal can go trough and when it comes to enforcing them if those countries arent willing you cant enforce it.

TheManFromDelmonte
September 24 2012, 05:58:40 PM
No, the UN doesn't really have the power to vote on such an issue or even try to think about enforcing it on member countries.

UN has in reality 0 power. Without support of USA/China/Russia no mayor deal can go trough and when it comes to enforcing them if those countries arent willing you cant enforce it.

Looks like you're thinking of the security council. Also you forgot France and th UK (though I understand why).

This would probably be the Human Rights council or the General Assembly or whatver (cba reading it as it's nonsense tabloid click bait)

People who signed the UN convention on rights of the child still haven't made laws against all the things in it. Same for human rights.
It has less weight in the UK than a magistrate court.

Warpath
September 24 2012, 06:36:08 PM
Pakistans president going to UN to call for a ban


His comments will intensify pressure on President Asif Zardari to sack his defiant minister when he returns from addressing the United Nations General Assembly this week, where he is expected to call for an international anti-blasphemy law and compare it to laws in Europe which outlaw 'Holocaust denial.' But his proposal has been undermined by Mr Bilour's incitement and bounty offer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/9563183/Pakistan-minister-refuses-to-step-down-over-bounty.html


In the western world we regularly criticise and take the piss out of just about every religion going so why exactly should Islam be a special case?

Nicho Void
September 24 2012, 06:53:56 PM
In the western world we regularly criticise and take the piss out of just about every religion going so why exactly should Islam be a special case?
Because criticism of Islam results in mass beheading...and rather than putting these children in a permanent timeout, the UN agrees to hear their insane demands and validate their special brand of crazy?

Sacul
September 24 2012, 07:00:45 PM
My question, not knowing the extent of the power of the United nations, would it actually be possible for them to create such a law and force countries within the UN to apply this law.

The extent of their power is calling a resolution condemning the use of blasphemy that can pass the general assembly and a veto from the security council isnt relevant since it isnt a resolution to 'act' or 'enforce' on.

Frug
September 24 2012, 07:54:16 PM
My question, not knowing the extent of the power of the United nations, would it actually be possible for them to create such a law and force countries within the UN to apply this law.

When was the last time you witnessed the UN forcing anyone to do anything?



Title implies the UN wants to implement it

No it doesn't. When an organization like the UN considers things, it is deciding whether or not it wants to implement them. It doesn't already know what it wants to do. That would contradict the word 'considering'

More seriously though, I think it's hypocritical for countries like the UK to reject anti-blasphemy laws (or for anyone living in the UK to say lol that's ridiculous! as if it's not happening already at home) when they go after people for racial slurs or plain rude remarks on twitter. Legislation against blasphemy is fucked up, but the west already enforces laws like it.

Rans
September 24 2012, 09:57:19 PM
This law would go against human rights and so on, so no, this is just "let's listen to the crazy people because we're all about equality of chances and we need to make them feel like we're listening"

SAI Peregrinus
September 24 2012, 10:34:14 PM
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


How about no?

And if by some weird miracle such a thing did pass, it would lead to massive hilarity. "There is no god but Allah" is blasphemy to every religion other than Islam. "Jesus Christ is the Savior" is blasphemy to every religion other than the various Christian denominations. "Odin is the All Father" is blasphemy to non Norse pagans. Etc. Everyone has an excuse to sue everyone else!

Tarminic
September 24 2012, 10:41:25 PM
Title is misleading. An organization called the Organisation of Islamic Co-Operation has, according to the article, tried to push this mandate for years. So nothing new there other than it becoming relevant once again due to the whole movie drama.

My question, not knowing the extent of the power of the United nations, would it actually be possible for them to create such a law and force countries within the UN to apply this law.

How is it misleading? The UN is this week considering the proposal. That seems pretty much to be what the title says.
"Our class is going to consider fucking your mom" is very different than "someone in our class is going to put forward a motion that we fuck your mom".

The first implies that the class as a whole decided to consider whether fucking your mom is a viable course of action, which would be disconcerting to everyone with the possible exception of your mom. The second implies that our class has a guy in it that wants to fuck your mom and we have to hear him out before telling him that no matter how much he wants it he's never going to fuck your mom.

Joshua Foiritain
September 25 2012, 12:29:21 AM
Title is misleading. An organization called the Organisation of Islamic Co-Operation has, according to the article, tried to push this mandate for years. So nothing new there other than it becoming relevant once again due to the whole movie drama.

My question, not knowing the extent of the power of the United nations, would it actually be possible for them to create such a law and force countries within the UN to apply this law.

How is it misleading? The UN is this week considering the proposal. That seems pretty much to be what the title says.
"Our class is going to consider fucking your mom" is very different than "someone in our class is going to put forward a motion that we fuck your mom".

The first implies that the class as a whole decided to consider whether fucking your mom is a viable course of action, which would be disconcerting to everyone with the possible exception of your mom. The second implies that our class has a guy in it that wants to fuck your mom and we have to hear him out before telling him that no matter how much he wants it he's never going to fuck your mom.

Best analogy ever.

Frug
September 25 2012, 05:20:30 AM
"Our class is going to consider fucking your mom" is very different than "someone in our class is going to put forward a motion that we fuck your mom".

These two things are exactly the same if your class has a system whereby people can put things up for class consideration.

I don't think there's anything wrong at all in the way it's worded - I think the problem is that you guys don't get that saying that the UN, as a body, is considering things in no way implies that each individual in it is considering it seriously.

Zeekar
September 25 2012, 06:14:50 AM
My question, not knowing the extent of the power of the United nations, would it actually be possible for them to create such a law and force countries within the UN to apply this law.

The extent of their power is calling a resolution condemning the use of blasphemy that can pass the general assembly and a veto from the security council isnt relevant since it isnt a resolution to 'act' or 'enforce' on.

I was under the impression the security council can veto any and all UN resolutions. Well you learn something new every day.

Lallante
September 25 2012, 08:56:29 AM
ITT posters lack basic understanding of UN proceedings, no big surprise, few people care about this shit.

"Consider" is the correct, term, as used in the UN General Assembly rules of procedure.

General Assembly resolutions are almost always non-binding and do not call for direct, specific action by member states. They are statements of principle.

Over something like this, a 2/3 majority would be needed.

The OP title couldn't have been more accurate, literally.

Rans
September 25 2012, 09:50:11 AM
Hey, we spent a few days discussing the title of the thread and not the content, we're just like the UN, only smaller.

Nartek
September 25 2012, 10:25:24 AM
How about the UN consider crimanilizing the treatment/abuse of slaves, err, sorry, third country nationals in the "hey, I got oil" parts of the middle east, while at the same time make it illegal to kill someone through other means than most western nations, and pass a bill that outlaws the maltreatment of women through a restriction of rights, and a legal system that views them with hostility first.

Then I'll worry about offending their sensibilities. If they want western style laws to protect their poor little brains from the harmful machinations of all the satans in the world... they should probably take a couple giant fucking leaps into actually being westernized first, otherwise it's a recipe for disaster anytime some crazy fuck prophet channeling retard decides that baking tomatoes is blasphemous.

whispous
September 25 2012, 12:42:02 PM
How about the UN consider crimanilizing the treatment/abuse of slaves, err, sorry, third country nationals in the "hey, I got oil" parts of the middle east, while at the same time make it illegal to kill someone through other means than most western nations, and pass a bill that outlaws the maltreatment of women through a restriction of rights, and a legal system that views them with hostility first.

Then I'll worry about offending their sensibilities. If they want western style laws to protect their poor little brains from the harmful machinations of all the satans in the world... they should probably take a couple giant fucking leaps into actually being westernized first, otherwise it's a recipe for disaster anytime some crazy fuck prophet channeling retard decides that baking tomatoes is blasphemous.

You could say though that they dont want to become westernised, they want the west to become easternised.

telephone

Tarminic
September 25 2012, 03:28:18 PM
ITT posters lack basic understanding of UN proceedings, no big surprise, few people care about this shit.

"Consider" is the correct, term, as used in the UN General Assembly rules of procedure.

General Assembly resolutions are almost always non-binding and do not call for direct, specific action by member states. They are statements of principle.

Over something like this, a 2/3 majority would be needed.

The OP title couldn't have been more accurate, literally.
Misleading and technically accurate are not mutually exclusive.

Frug
September 25 2012, 03:49:34 PM
Misleading and technically accurate are not mutually exclusive.

I can't believe you're still trying to defend not having a basic understanding of how these bodies work.

edit: the word consider does imply "thinking carefully about" something, which I suppose means you can say in prose that you "didn't even consider" something, but a body like the UN doesn't work that way.


Hey, we spent a few days discussing the title of the thread and not the content, we're just like the UN, only smaller.
This is spectacular.


How about the UN consider crimanilizing the treatment/abuse of slaves, err, sorry, third country nationals in the "hey, I got oil" parts of the middle east, while at the same time make it illegal to kill someone through other means than most western nations, and pass a bill that outlaws the maltreatment of women through a restriction of rights, and a legal system that views them with hostility first.


I don't think they can consider criminalizing those things, if I understand their powers correctly. They can consider condemning them, and I'm pretty sure they already have. But they don't act to criminalize things.

That would be a case of them not considering it at all. See?

Dirk Magnum
September 25 2012, 04:04:51 PM
My problem is less about the concept of blasphemy laws and more about what kind of punishment might be implied as sanctioned by it. It's a troubling headline to read right now, because one might interpret it as a vindication of the recent mob violence and terrorist attacks as a response to that moronic film. Because it's not about how the UN words any sort of anti-blasphemy resolution, it's about how radical governments in Africa and Asia might twist its words to justify even more repression of their people. It's sort of telling that the government official in Pakistan offering a bounty on the filmmaker/s isn't sitting in jail for it right now.

IMO, one must not give even an inch of space for tolerance of heinous behavior that trivializes human life and promotes human suffering. If the UN actually does pass a (thankfully unbinding) resolution regarding blasphemy laws, it needs to immediately follow that up with a no-bullshit or word parsing resolution that condemns in plain language any government that uses the resolution to promote violence or oppression (or fails to sanction rogue members of said government who do.) Granted, similar resolutions usually fail to stem violence or oppression, but as is usually the case with UN resolutions it's the thought that counts :(

Lallante
September 25 2012, 04:08:43 PM
ITT posters lack basic understanding of UN proceedings, no big surprise, few people care about this shit.

"Consider" is the correct, term, as used in the UN General Assembly rules of procedure.

General Assembly resolutions are almost always non-binding and do not call for direct, specific action by member states. They are statements of principle.

Over something like this, a 2/3 majority would be needed.

The OP title couldn't have been more accurate, literally.
Misleading and technically accurate are not mutually exclusive.

Dont blame the OP for you ignorance. Its not misleading in any way you just dont understand what "consider" means in the context of a formal body or meeting. Its pretty common to use it in the way the OP does.

Crystalline Entity
September 26 2012, 08:48:35 AM
Thanks for the add to this serious discussion group, I would now like to put my moderate views across about Islam..


The following evaluations eminate from many Medical-Historical scholars from around the world over a period of hundreds of years of focused analysis and research. Many of these facts are found in the hadiths while some have been destroyed to protect the false image and desired religious memory of the prophet to control Muslims.

They explain, in part, WHY anyone depicting Muhammad was and is to be killed [Cartoon riots]. Simply, he made up the death rule in the hadith so as to avoid ridicule over his ghastly appearance and disloyalty of any follower. Read why.

If you are a Muslim this is the actual deranged, but clever, madman who never allowed peace upon anyone and always took a 20% cut from all who did his criminal bidding. Please rethink your allegiance. You would not want him as a neighbor, business associate, or inside a mosque.

Muhammad was thoroughly narcissistic - self-love (inordinate), self-importance and other-world "self" proclaimed abilities (the messenger of god). There was an apparent "arrest" or regression in his early stages of libidinal development in which there was a focus on his own erotic pleasure - the sexual aspect as well as paedophilia involved in his case. As a younger man he was married to a wealthy woman 15 years his senior. Because his mother died when he was quite young, he developed a mother fixation attachment to the first wife, recorded in historical holy books of Islam. He was a "control freak" who was able to influence once peaceful Bedoin tribesmen to commit heinous acts such as mutilation and beheading of those they stalked. Driven by greed they did his bidding. Some considered him "Magic" or ginn while others openly mocked him.

He gave off a peculiar strong bodily smell, so repugnant from his maladies, the intense heat and lack of water, and infrequent bathing. His hair and beard were filthy and infested, knotted, and rank smelling.

"Too bad for humanity that Mohammed's temporal lobe epilepsy didn't manifest itself in less malignant ways..."

[The following are excerpts and medical observations from hundreds of scholarly works found on the www on Muhammad's grave physical conditions. The vast majority of all health references indicate that he was, indeed, a very sick man.]

From Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Clinical Neuroscience by Rhawn Joseph-- Williams & Wilkins Press, Second Edition, 1996)

Muhammad, god’s alleged "messenger", was apparently dyslexic and agraphic (loss, partial or total, of the ability to write) and was known to lose consciousness and enter into trance-like states. In fact, he had his first truly "spiritual/religious" conversion when, as the story goes, he was torn from his sleep by the archangel Gabriel.

Muhammad was considered, at times, a basically kind and considerate man, but he was also known to fly into extreme rages and to kill, or at least order killed, wealthy infidels and merchants and those who opposed him for any reason. He was very sensative to any reference to his physical appearance as we shall see. These behaviors, when coupled with his increased sexuality, heightened religious fervor, trance states, mood swings, and possible auditory and visual hallucinations of a titanic angel, certainly point to the limbic system and inferior temporal lobe as the possible neurological foundation for these experiences.

RELIGION, LIMBIC SYSTEM HYPERACTIVATION, AND TEMPORAL LOBE SEIZURES OF MUHAMMAD.

Among a TINY MINORITY of humans, the nuclei of the limbic system have a tendency to periodically become over-activated. When this occurs, emotions may be perceived or expressed abnormally, and the sensory and emotional filtering that normally takes place in these nuclei is vastly reduced or totally abolished. Moreover, instead of being merely overly sensitive, those affected may suddenly experience extreme anger, rage, paranoia, depression, sexual desire, or even religious ecstasy. They may hallucinate the presence of threatening people, animals, or even religious figures such as angels or demons. Deepening of emotions, hallucinations, alterations in sex drive, and the development of extreme religious beliefs (i.e., hyper self religiousness) are not uncommon manifestations of limbic-temporal lobe seizures and hyperactivation.

In fact, certain individuals who develop temporal lobe epilepsy and, thus, limbic hyperactivation, may suddenly become hyper-religious and spend hours reading and/or talking about the spiritual messages (or other culturally relevant scriptures) and other religious issues imparted. Once this condition develops, they may spend hours every day preaching, chanting, or writing out their mystical and/or religious thoughts, or engaging in certain actions they believe have high religious significance. Many modern-day religious writers who also happen to suffer from epilepsy are, in fact, exceedingly prolific, and some who feel impelled to preach tend to do just that. All of these manifestations were apparent in Muhammad's behavior.

People who suffer from periodic episodes of limbic and temporal lobe hyper-activation, such as those with temporal lobe epilepsy, typically have seizures. It is not uncommon for these seizures to be preceded by an hallucination or series of them as he frequently ranted.

Isolation, as well as food and water deprivation, increased or decreased sexual activity, pain, drug use, self-mutilation, prayer, and meditation are common methods of attaining mystical states of religious and spiritual awareness, and have been employed world-wide, across time and culture. These states also activate the limbic system above normal function mode.

For example, not only can pain or a desirable food item or sex partner result in limbic arousal, but when the limbic system is denied normal modes of input, be it sensory, emotional, social, or nutritional, it can become hyperactive; stimuli normally deleted and/or subject to sensory filtering are instead perceived. That is; limbic sensory acuity is increased, and in some respects what is perceived is not always an "hallucination" in the sense that it really involves the perception of overlapping sensory qualities that are normally filtered out. Sensory filtering is quite common at the level of the amygdala, which contains neurons that are multimodally responsive as well as inhibitory via serotonin. However, when this filter is removed, hallucinations and/or the perception of unusual sensory qualities can result. This was a common occurance in Muhammad's adult life and perceived by many as mystical qualities.

The majority of Muhammad's biographers concede that he received all of his revelations from god, either in dreams or during seizures. During the painful episodes of seizures, Muhammad heard bells ringing in his ears and pearl-sized drops of perspiration trickled from his body even during the winter (Martin Ling, op. cit, p. 245). When fully recovered, he narrated the contents of the vision written down by scribes. Many times they wrote narrations of muhammad's peculiar swoons and utterances.

Those observations of Muhammad's behavior are indicative of the fact that he suffered from epilepsy and/or schizophrenia, two medical conditions that were a mystery to the people of his time. Dr. Gustav Weil, in a note to Muhammad der Prophet, discusses the question of Muhammad's being subject to attacks of epilepsy, a physical condition, "which has generally been represented as a slander, concocted by his enemies, as well as by the Christian writers."

His ailment appears, however, to have been asserted by some of the oldest Muslim biographers, now labeled as "hired biographers" by some modern Muslim writers (Dr. Rafiq Zakaria, Muhammad and the Quran); it having been established as being a genuine "assertion" on the authority of other writers, who were contemporaneous to their time.

He would suddenly be seized, they said, with violent trembling followed by a kind of swoon or, more accurately, convulsion, during which perspiration would stream from his forehead in the coldest weather; he would lie with his eyes closed, foaming at the mouth, and bellowing like a young camel. Violent writhing and spasms were observed.

Muhammad's Gigantism caused the excessive size of his extremities [head, hands, feet]; usually caused by over secretion of growth hormone from the pituitary gland. He frequently veiled his head and face, particularly while watching when his tribal plunderers were engaged in murder, beheadings, and theft at his direction.

History confirms Muhammads peculiar maladies.

[Translated from the Dutch.]

"According to the hadith Muhammad suffered from a long-lasting disease, which he treated by means of bleeding. He walked as somebody who comes down from a hill. His skin-colour was peculiar, not white, not too tanned, somewhat gaunt rosy, yet swarthy. His eyebrows were conspicuous and extended. He was sweating heavily, especially when he was receiving 'revelations'. He heard the noise of bells and voices. He had a great appetite and suffered from hunger. Notwithstanding his sexual relations with ten young women, he remained quasi-sterile: one only child after the age of forty years. During his last illness he suffered from intense headaches, losses of consciousness, back- and intestinal pains. He died at the age of 62 years. Psychologically he was known as 'trustworthy', somewhat retiring and prude. Initially, about at the age of forty years, he was depressed, retiring, and showed a tendency to suicide which he had shown in earlier years according to hadith. He spoke slowly. Most typical were his great hands, dough feeling palms, great feet, a long fleshy nose, well developed ears and a peculiar voice.

These indications suggest that he suffered from acromegaly. This hypothesis allows to explain almost all details found in the hadith. Psychologically he was considered as a 'trustworthy' person [only to his fellow plunderers]. Initially depressed and devoid of self-confidence, he considered suicide frequently. He suffered from hallucinoses and even hallucinations. http://users.skynet.be/sky50779/mohammed.htm

MEDICAL PATHOLOGY

*Soft tissue proliferation is one of the early manifestations. Leading to the classic features: enlargement of the hands, feet and facial features, the most common complaint of the patients; "Gigantism" ACROMEGLY.

In adults, the syndrome is characterized by local overgrowth of bone (skull, mandible). Note: In 1932 an English film was produced about a strange and powerful murderer. "The Creeper" starred an acromegliac named Rhondo Hatten.

Muhammad as a leader figure...

To the common and unlearned ancient Bedoin desert tribesman Muhammad would appear as a strange and all-powerful giant. Combine this with the sweats and delerious mystical rantings, his supposed "knowledge" derived from early life Jewish teachers, his total rejection by, taunting, and his subsequent absolute hatred of the learned and successful Jews, and you have a sick but natural angry anti-social murderer, thief, rapist, plunderer, and preying pedophile motivating the poor to take from others for a better life, always sharing their spoils with him. Under threat and fear, they even shared their young children for his pleasure and sexual gratification.

This sick and delusional madman has corrupted BILLIONS and continues to do so today! Please notify all mosques, madrasses, and CAIR.

YAWS Their are two (2) recorded specific detailed accounts of Muhammad's physical appearance and visual description given at different periods [stages] of his life by different chroniclers. It is difficult to ascertain if one might have been written truthfully and the other written as complimentary because the author feared for his life. In one description, he shows many of the overt signs and manifestations of later stage Syphilis.

It would not be inconceivable that Muhammad was a Syphletic because of his hyper-active sexuality. Since, in warm climates, the most vulnerable to the infection and spread of disease are young children from ages 6-12 years. Various accounts indicate that he frequently partook of at least 10-11 children, possibly more. Without DNA blood samples we cannot be sure. Compare the signs and symptoms with the prior text description.

Yaws (also Frambesia tropica, thymosis, polypapilloma tropicum or pian) is a tropical infection of the skin, bones and joints caused by the spirochete bacterium Treponema pertenue. Other treponematosis diseases are bejel (Treponema endemicum), pinta (Treponema carateum), and syphilis (Treponema pallidum).

The insanity caused by late-stage syphilis was once one of the more common forms of dementia; this was known as the "general paresis of the insane".

The disease is transmitted by skin contact with infected individuals, the spirochete entering through an existing cut or similar damage. Within ninety days (but usually less than a month) of infection a painless but distinctive 'mother yaw' ulcerous papule appears on the skin at the point of entry, it is often described as raspberry-like and is 10-50 mm in size. This lesion will persist for up to nine months and other secondary growths will appear on the body as the original one heals, there may also be inflammation of the fingers (dactylitis).

If untreated a secondary stage occurs after up to four months of latency, it is marked by more 'raspberry' growths but smaller and ulcerous - exuding a thin, highly infective fluid which attracts flies. These growths may also merge together into thick fissured plaques, which can occur on the feet and induce a distinctive gait. These secondary growths are irreversible but there can be relapsing lesions and asymptomatic periods.

In 10-20% of cases the disease can progress over a decade or more to a tertiary stage with destructive lesions of the skin and bones. Large subcutaneous nodules develop and grow before abscessing and ulcerating, these can become infected and may merge together forming serpiginous tracts. These tracts heal with keloid formation which can cause

deformities, disabilities and limb contractures. The bone lesions caused are periostitis, osteitis, and osteomyelitis, damage to the tibia can lead to a condition known as sabre shins. In a very few cases a condition known as goundou is caused where growths on the nasal maxillae can result in extensive and severe damage to the nose and palate. The disease is identified from blood tests or by a lesion sample through a darkfield examination under a microscope. Treatment is by a single dose of penicillin, erythromycin or tetracycline, recurrence or relapse is uncommon.

Islam prevents us from exhuming Muhammad

Examination of ancient remains has led to the suggestion that yaws has affected hominids for the last 1.5 million years. The current name is believed to be of Carib origin, "yaya" meaning sore; frambesia is a Modern Latin word inspired by the French word framboise ("raspberry").

Alfred Crosby has argued that neither side has the full story. Syphilis is a form of Yaws, which has existed in the Old World since time immemorial. Crosby argues that syphilis is a specific form of Yaws that had evolved in the New World and was brought back to the old, "the differing ecological conditions produced different types of treponematosis and, in time, closely related but different diseases". (ref:225 Crosby)

Different manifestations occur at each stage of the disease. Lymph nodes of the head and neck Anterior Cervical These nodes, both superficial and deep, lie above and beneath the sternocleidomastoid muscles. They drain the internal structures of the throat as well as part of the posterior pharynx, tonsils, and thyroid gland.

The Arabs called it the "Disease of the Christians". The name "syphilis" was first applied by Girolamo Fracastoro in 1530 from the name of a shepherd in a poem by Leonardo da Vinci.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/syphilis

The early form was much more virulent than the disease of today, the incubation period was shorter, only a few months, and the symptoms were more severe. In addition, the disease was more frequently fatal than it is today.

Combined with previously noted apparent [rearched] maladies and observations Muhammad may have died of the final stages of Syphilis [Yaws]. You be the diagnosing doctor.

Muhammad was mentally deranged and suicidal: Ishaq:106 “I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and be at rest.”

Muhammad cleverly created Allah to control and manipulate the foolish, as do the Imams and Mullahs today, using petty dictators to do their bidding. Allah is NOT Ilah.

Tabari VIII:12 “‘Rejoice, Allah has promised us victory after tribulation.’ This increased the Muslims faith and submission. When cities were conquered Muslims used to say, ‘Conquer for yourselves whatever seems good to you because all treasures were given to Muhammad.”

Muhammad was a pedophile pervert. Bukhari:V1B4N1229-33 “Aisha [who was 9] said, ‘I used to wash semen off the Prophet’s [who was 53] clothes. When he went for prayers I used to notice one or more spots on them.’”

Muhammad arranged bribes for obediance. Tabari IX:37

Ishaq:596 “Do you hold a grudge against me and are you mentally disturbed because of the worldly things by which I conciliate a people and win them over so that they will embrace Islam and become Muslims?”

Muhammad took whatever he pleased with no regard for other's rights.

He was a plunderer. Qur’an 8:28 “And know that your property and your children are just a temptation.”

Muhammad was a Slaver, as are the Muslim Saudi Sheiks, owning women as chattel, marrying for one night, buying horis. Qur’an 70:28 “Preserve their chastity except with their wives and the slave girls they possess—for which there is no blame.”

Muhammad was a thief, as are all Muslims. Qur’an 8:69 “So enjoy what you took as booty; the spoils are lawful and good.”

Muhammad kept his promises as suited his whims. Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.”

Muhammad was gravely affected as acromegly and yaws advanced in his body. Bukhari:V7B71N661 “Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle and he was bewitched so that he began to imagine doing things which in fact, he had not done.”

Muhammad resented being challenged or questioned as do all Muslims.

Bukhari:V2B24N555 “I heard the Prophet say, ‘Allah hates for you for asking too many questions.’”

Muhammad's made-up god was vicious, like Muhammad. Qur’an 5:41 “Whomever Allah wants to deceive you cannot help. Allah does not want them to know the truth because he intends to disgrace them and then torture them.”

Muhammad was a liar. Ishaq:567 “Muhammad informed Umar {the second Caliph after him}, and he called the Prophet a liar.”

Muhammad, like all Muslims, thought he fooled everyone until he was found out. Bukhari:V6B60N662 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Some eloquent speech is as effective as magic.’”

Muhammad's god gave no love or comfort. He is fear and submission to threat. Qur’an 40:32 “O my People! I fear a Day when there will be mutual wailing. No one shall defend you against Allah. Any whom Allah causes to err, there is no guide. That is how Allah leads the skeptic astray.”

Muhammad used his god for evil plots and betrayal. Qur’an 8:30 “Remember how the unbelievers plotted against you (Muhammad). They plotted, and Allah too had arranged a plot; but Allah is the best schemer.”

Muhammad could not fool the Jews as he did the ignorant Bedoins, so he killed them. Tabari VII:85

Ishaq:363 “The Jews of the Qaynuqa replied, ‘Muhammad, do you think that we are like your people? Do not be deluded by the fact that you met a people with no knowledge and you made good use of your opportunity.’”

Muhammad is not believed. Bukhari:V4B52N233 “Allah’s Apostle forbade the people to travel to a hostile country carrying copies of the Qur’an. [He said:] Unbelievers will never understand our signs and revelations.” Muslims drag thathe worst written book in all the world everywhere they go. it replaces mind and soul.

Muhammad is responsible for more death than all of history's tyrants combined.

Ishaq:383 “One of the young men’s fathers confronted Muhammad and said, ‘You have robbed my son of his life by your deception and brought great sorrow to me.’”

Muhammad was known to be a deseased liar by many. Ishaq:496 “‘By Allah you lie,’ one said to another. ‘Liar yourself!’ ‘You are a disaffected person arguing on behalf of the diseased.”

Muhammad's evil has spread to 57 Muslim countries. In every country on earth Muslims are unwelcome because they are suicidal madmen, fools given to a fake paradise created in Muhammad's epileptic seizures.

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

This was 9/11/01 in America.

Nay to Islam. Nay to muhammad. Nay to your controlled and miserable state of sub-existance foolish and deceived Muhammaden!



:D :D

CE

Dark Flare
September 26 2012, 09:08:34 AM
The above is a copypasta. Infracted, and get the fuck out if that's all you're going to do in this sub.

Hel OWeen
September 26 2012, 10:30:48 AM
The above is a copypasta. Infracted, and get the fuck out if that's all you're going to do in this sub.

This!

This was the claim ...


They explain, in part, WHY anyone depicting Muhammad was and is to be killed [Cartoon riots]. Simply, he made up the death rule in the hadith so as to avoid ridicule over his ghastly appearance and disloyalty of any follower. Read why.

... which in itself is inflamatory enough to be disregarded. But that's not enough, it's just untrue. The real reason is that he wanted to avoid to become an idol himself, drawing the real attention of the believer away from his god. A good intention, if you ask me. But as with almost everything, "good intended" can be the opposite of "well done" ... and the fanatics sure have taken this to the opposite of the original extension.

Dark Flare
September 26 2012, 10:42:02 AM
The problem, as I see it, is that the more devout/fanatical muslim world hasn't been forced to be more reasonable like Christianity was.

In the Bible it says to stone your kids for talking back to you. We managed to stomp that out of Christians, but nobody has managed to stomp the "kill people who draw your prophet" out of fanatical Muslims.

I'm hoping it's only a matter of time, because if things don't get better... well, they're only going to get worse.

Tarminic
September 26 2012, 04:23:19 PM
I don't think it's the kind of thing you can "stamp out". Fighting extremism with more extremism only has two logical conclusions - stalemate or genocide. I think it can only be eroded via cultural osmosis and education.

Dark Flare
September 26 2012, 04:28:51 PM
That was mostly what I meant by stamp out. I wasn't being literal O_o

Tarminic
September 26 2012, 04:31:45 PM
That was mostly what I meant by stamp out. I wasn't being literal O_o
Apologies for the misinterpretation. Unfortunately I've had discussions with people who were all for committing genocide.

NoirAvlaa
September 26 2012, 04:31:55 PM
I don't think it's the kind of thing you can "stamp out". Fighting extremism with more extremism only has two logical conclusions - stalemate or genocide. I think it can only be eroded via cultural osmosis and education.

Basically this. I think there's studies done that indicate pretty strongly the higher IQ someone has, the less religious they are (there were of course exceptions, but it generally followed that trend).

I don't have them to hand as I'm at work but I'll see if I can dig them out. But I agree with what's said here, in that by educating people they will either stop believing or be sensible enough to not apply their own beliefs onto people who don't themselves hold them, thus removing this whole problem in the first place and letting people do whatever the hell they want without having to worry about someone turning up and killing them.

Dark Flare
September 26 2012, 04:34:38 PM
That was mostly what I meant by stamp out. I wasn't being literal O_o
Apologies for the misinterpretation. Unfortunately I've had discussions with people who were all for committing genocide.

It'd be impractical anyway, nobody has shoes big enough to stamp on that many people.

Hel OWeen
September 26 2012, 04:38:05 PM
The problem, as I see it, is that the more devout/fanatical muslim world hasn't been forced to be more reasonable like Christianity was.

In the Bible it says to stone your kids for talking back to you. We managed to stomp that out of Christians, but nobody has managed to stomp the "kill people who draw your prophet" out of fanatical Muslims.


The sad thing is that in the dark middle ages, Islam was the progressive, science-embracing religion (perhaps not by today's standards, but given how the world was back then), whereas the christians (re)acted like those fanatic (despite the riots, the majority of muslims is moderate) muslims do it nowadays.

But there seems to be an unholy race to the bottom on both sides. Creationists/Flat earthers/<whatnot> on both sides, gaining more and more attraction and growing bigger. We're really heading back to the dark ages.

Hel OWeen
September 26 2012, 04:43:32 PM
Basically this. I think there's studies done that indicate pretty strongly the higher IQ someone has, the less religious they are (there were of course exceptions, but it generally followed that trend).


I don't remember studies dealing with IQ, but I seem to remember a study that showed a correlation between education and being religious. The better educated people are the more secular their views are. That doesn't necessarily imply that they become atheist - but their belief is "tamed down". "God" is more kind of a concept than a real being etc.

Frug
September 26 2012, 04:55:44 PM
The sad thing is that in the dark middle ages, Islam was the progressive, science-embracing religion (perhaps not by today's standards, but given how the world was back then), whereas the christians (re)acted like those fanatic (despite the riots, the majority of muslims is moderate) muslims do it nowadays.

Too few people (and too few of these poor, uneducated, fanatical muslims) know about this. Their faith had a golden age which was totally different from the nonsense they have going on now.

They preserved ancient texts instead of burning shit.

Lallante
September 26 2012, 05:37:16 PM
Right, the key difference is clearly education levels. In those days the Islamic world was the best educated globally.

We need to pump huge amounts of money into secular schools in Afghanistan, Saudi, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.

TheManFromDelmonte
September 26 2012, 10:35:01 PM
Right, the key difference is clearly education levels. In those days the Islamic world was the best educated globally.

We need to pump huge amounts of money into secular schools in Afghanistan, Saudi, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.

And a lot of that will need to be security right now, to the point that they may need to be boarding schools.

OrangeAfroMan
September 27 2012, 05:30:15 AM
Did the Canadian representative walk out during the proposal?

Diicc Tater
September 27 2012, 02:29:44 PM
Right, the key difference is clearly education levels. In those days the Islamic world was the best educated globally.

We need to pump huge amounts of money into secular schools in Afghanistan, Saudi, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.

It's true.
Add Iran and Texas to that list. No, not trolling.

Religious censorship is used to keep control over the uneducated masses. If you can keep them at a low enough education level and indoctrinate them you won't have need to use military/police force to keep them at rest. It's mind control by censorship.

Secular revolts will never carry any fruits as long as the people believe the pious leaders.

Blasphemy... jesus fucking christ. They always separate gods law and law of man. God can deal with the blasphemers when it's her turn.

Dorvil Barranis
September 30 2012, 09:04:55 PM
Random addition to "Islam Thread". From a new guide presented to Afghan security forces to help them better understand their coalition brosef.

http://www.rferl.org/content/excerpts-from-afghan-cultural-sensitivity-guide/24707518.html


* Most coalition soldiers like talking about their families and share stories and photographs of them with their friends. If a coalition soldier asks you about your family members, including your wife or daughter, do not take this as an offense or an attempt to humiliate you. They only want to have friendly relations with you. Instead of taking offense, you should tell them that Afghans do not discuss their female family members with others.

* A coalition soldier might pass in front of you when you are praying without realizing it, or put their boots, which point to others in the room, on a table. You should not take offense at this practice.

* As you know, Afghans don't blow their noses in the presence of others. But the practice of blowing your nose in public is a very common practice among the countries where your coalition partners come from. If a coalition soldier blows his nose in your presence, do not take it as an insult.

* If a coalition solider is excited or wants to show appreciation for your work he may pat you on the back or shoulder. It is not meant as an insult and you should not take it personally.

* As you know, Afghans never shake with their left hands, wink, signal with their fingers, or show their private parts in the presence of others in the same shower. But coalition forces have a different way of doing things. They don't want to insult you; it is only a cultural difference. You should talk with your coalition colleagues about these differences.

I thought this was kinda funny, not sure if that means it fits in this super serious discussion.

"Don't worry Afghan soldiers, if a coalition troop shows you his privates in the shower, he isn't trying to offend, that's just how they roll."

A different translation I saw referenced "excited coalition soldiers patting your back or bottom", which would clearly be ripe for humorous misinterpretation by the afghans. If deciding to shoot some decadent foreigners counts as humorous misinterpretation. If they watched more football they would know that it isn't gay to play some grab ass with your bros.

Lallante
October 1 2012, 10:50:52 AM
Random addition to "Islam Thread". From a new guide presented to Afghan security forces to help them better understand their coalition brosef.

http://www.rferl.org/content/excerpts-from-afghan-cultural-sensitivity-guide/24707518.html


* Most coalition soldiers like talking about their families and share stories and photographs of them with their friends. If a coalition soldier asks you about your family members, including your wife or daughter, do not take this as an offense or an attempt to humiliate you. They only want to have friendly relations with you. Instead of taking offense, you should tell them that Afghans do not discuss their female family members with others.

* A coalition soldier might pass in front of you when you are praying without realizing it, or put their boots, which point to others in the room, on a table. You should not take offense at this practice.

* As you know, Afghans don't blow their noses in the presence of others. But the practice of blowing your nose in public is a very common practice among the countries where your coalition partners come from. If a coalition soldier blows his nose in your presence, do not take it as an insult.

* If a coalition solider is excited or wants to show appreciation for your work he may pat you on the back or shoulder. It is not meant as an insult and you should not take it personally.

* As you know, Afghans never shake with their left hands, wink, signal with their fingers, or show their private parts in the presence of others in the same shower. But coalition forces have a different way of doing things. They don't want to insult you; it is only a cultural difference. You should talk with your coalition colleagues about these differences.

I thought this was kinda funny, not sure if that means it fits in this super serious discussion.

"Don't worry Afghan soldiers, if a coalition troop shows you his privates in the shower, he isn't trying to offend, that's just how they roll."

A different translation I saw referenced "excited coalition soldiers patting your back or bottom", which would clearly be ripe for humorous misinterpretation by the afghans. If deciding to shoot some decadent foreigners counts as humorous misinterpretation. If they watched more football they would know that it isn't gay to play some grab ass with your bros.

This seems like a pretty harmless/sensible list tbh. I got given something similar when I moved to Japan

Diicc Tater
October 1 2012, 02:19:06 PM
Random addition to "Islam Thread". From a new guide presented to Afghan security forces to help them better understand their coalition brosef.

http://www.rferl.org/content/excerpts-from-afghan-cultural-sensitivity-guide/24707518.html


* Most coalition soldiers like talking about their families and share stories and photographs of them with their friends. If a coalition soldier asks you about your family members, including your wife or daughter, do not take this as an offense or an attempt to humiliate you. They only want to have friendly relations with you. Instead of taking offense, you should tell them that Afghans do not discuss their female family members with others.

* A coalition soldier might pass in front of you when you are praying without realizing it, or put their boots, which point to others in the room, on a table. You should not take offense at this practice.

* As you know, Afghans don't blow their noses in the presence of others. But the practice of blowing your nose in public is a very common practice among the countries where your coalition partners come from. If a coalition soldier blows his nose in your presence, do not take it as an insult.

* If a coalition solider is excited or wants to show appreciation for your work he may pat you on the back or shoulder. It is not meant as an insult and you should not take it personally.

* As you know, Afghans never shake with their left hands, wink, signal with their fingers, or show their private parts in the presence of others in the same shower. But coalition forces have a different way of doing things. They don't want to insult you; it is only a cultural difference. You should talk with your coalition colleagues about these differences.

I thought this was kinda funny, not sure if that means it fits in this super serious discussion.

"Don't worry Afghan soldiers, if a coalition troop shows you his privates in the shower, he isn't trying to offend, that's just how they roll."

A different translation I saw referenced "excited coalition soldiers patting your back or bottom", which would clearly be ripe for humorous misinterpretation by the afghans. If deciding to shoot some decadent foreigners counts as humorous misinterpretation. If they watched more football they would know that it isn't gay to play some grab ass with your bros.

This seems like a pretty harmless/sensible list tbh. I got given something similar when I moved to Japan

share that list. :D

ccpl_fisher
October 18 2012, 01:37:57 AM
Random addition to "Islam Thread". From a new guide presented to Afghan security forces to help them better understand their coalition brosef.

http://www.rferl.org/content/excerpts-from-afghan-cultural-sensitivity-guide/24707518.html


* Most coalition soldiers like talking about their families and share stories and photographs of them with their friends. If a coalition soldier asks you about your family members, including your wife or daughter, do not take this as an offense or an attempt to humiliate you. They only want to have friendly relations with you. Instead of taking offense, you should tell them that Afghans do not discuss their female family members with others.

* A coalition soldier might pass in front of you when you are praying without realizing it, or put their boots, which point to others in the room, on a table. You should not take offense at this practice.

* As you know, Afghans don't blow their noses in the presence of others. But the practice of blowing your nose in public is a very common practice among the countries where your coalition partners come from. If a coalition soldier blows his nose in your presence, do not take it as an insult.

* If a coalition solider is excited or wants to show appreciation for your work he may pat you on the back or shoulder. It is not meant as an insult and you should not take it personally.

* As you know, Afghans never shake with their left hands, wink, signal with their fingers, or show their private parts in the presence of others in the same shower. But coalition forces have a different way of doing things. They don't want to insult you; it is only a cultural difference. You should talk with your coalition colleagues about these differences.

I thought this was kinda funny, not sure if that means it fits in this super serious discussion.

"Don't worry Afghan soldiers, if a coalition troop shows you his privates in the shower, he isn't trying to offend, that's just how they roll."

A different translation I saw referenced "excited coalition soldiers patting your back or bottom", which would clearly be ripe for humorous misinterpretation by the afghans. If deciding to shoot some decadent foreigners counts as humorous misinterpretation. If they watched more football they would know that it isn't gay to play some grab ass with your bros.
Coalition troops get the same kind of thing. The problem is that so many of these things are ingrained. Coalition troops regularly insult afghan troops by doing little things (and they do the same)

cullnean
October 29 2012, 08:13:21 PM
Something that still shocks me is the average soldiers attitude to wards Islam, I'll write bigger post on this when I get on my pc, its bordering on bred in racism