http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/1043738/south-park-cuts-image-of-mohammed-after-threat

'South Park' cuts Mohammed image after threat

The latest episode of satirical cartoon show "South Park" has been censored after a radical Muslim group threatened the show's creators for their depiction of the Prophet Mohammed.

A spokesman for the Comedy Central television channel confirmed to AFP that the network had added a series of audio bleeps to the episode broadcast late Wednesday, which effectively removed all references to Prophet Mohammed.

"I can confirm that Comedy Central added additional audio bleeps after the cut of the episode was delivered by the producers," the spokesman said.

Comedy Central would not confirm that the changes were linked to statements made by the New York-based Revolution Muslim group earlier this week.

The extremist group said South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker risked the same fate as slain Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who was murdered by a Muslim extremist in Amsterdam in 2004.

Revolution Muslim posted the address of Stone and Parker's Los Angeles production offices, but denied they were encouraging violence.

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show," the group said.

A spokesman for the group denied the statement was an incitement.

"Revolution Muslim only wants those offended to be able to voice their opposition by letters to the show's creators," a spokesman told CNN.

The Muslim group's statement followed the April 14 episode of "South Park," where the Prophet Mohammed appeared wearing a bear mascot costume in order to avoid his image being shown.

"South Park," which follows the surreal and often profane adventures of four schoolchildren in a fictitious Colorado town, has regularly lampooned religions during its 13 years on the air.

Atlantic Online blogger Andrew Sullivan accused Comedy Central of "wussing out" by censoring Wednesday's episode.

"'South Park' has long had Jesus and Satan, they have ridiculed Mormonism, eviscerated Scientology, mocked Catholicism and showed the Buddha actually doing lines of coke," Sullivan noted.

"None of the adherents of these other faiths have threatened to kill Matt and Trey, but, of course, some Sunni Islamists did so. So what does Comedy Central do? They wussed out even further."

Cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammed in Scandinavian media outlets in recent years have led to violence and plots to murder those responsible.

In 2005, Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten published 12 drawings focused on Islam, several of which were seen as linking the religion and the Prophet Mohammed to modern terrorism and suicide bombings.

The cartoons led to angry protests by Muslims worldwide, leaving dozens of people dead and causing major damage to Danish embassies and other facilities.

cowards

Yeah, cowards.

I wonder if anyone happened to notice any of these other cases of death threats recently?

Death threats made to Democrats who voted for Obama's health care reform (25/3/2010)

Death threats made against Sikh MP in Canada for "being too liberal" (23/4/2010)

Girl, 12, received 7 death threats a day just for having ginger hair (24/4/2010)

Australian ironman and aviation entrepeneur receives death threats because his aviation company "makes too much noise" (10/4/2010)

Executives receive death threats because recipients of lavish bonuses were going to be named publicly (19/3/2010)

Death threats against company executive who was given a government grant to develop geothermal energy (19/01/2010)

I am pretty certain that if I do a search through these forums, I'm going to struggle to find any of these recent cases of high profile death threats mentioned. Why? Because none of them contain the magic ingredient: Islam. This is nothing but media beat up and sensationalism at it's worst. And sadly some of these cases above are more relevant to Australia, Grant Kenny one of our sporting icons for instance, yet we're more interested in the Yanks? Why? Because it involves Islam.

No doubt some of the dead heads here are going to [mis]understand this post to be a diversion to other death threats. I'm merely pointing out the disproportionate amount of media coverage and attention given to this specific case because it involves Islam. I couldn't care less about diverting or pointing out the faults of others, it's purely an attempt to show how disinterested you all actually are in cases of death threats, UNLESS they happen to involve Islam.

Quote:

Why? Because none of them contain the magic ingredient: Islam.

No Abu, it's because none of them are part of a broad, deliberate, and partially effective effort at destroying freedom of speech. They are all from the lunatic fringe, it's just that the ones coming from Islam are from an organised lunatic fringe. There is a very good (and fair) reason why they get more coverage.

Also, there are very few examples of people getting killed over such trivial things as drawing a cartoon.


Quote:

I'm merely pointing out the disproportionate amount of media coverage and attention given to this specific case because it involves Islam.

It is not a specific case, but a persistent pattern of behaviour. If the journalists thought that Muslims were going to come to their senses tomorrow and feel silly about it, it would recieve as little attention as the other ones.


Quote:

I couldn't care less about diverting or pointing out the faults of others, it's purely an attempt to show how disinterested you all actually are in cases of death threats, UNLESS they happen to involve Islam.

It is not death threats alone that make it interesting. What makes it interesting is the attack on freedom of speech. It would recieve attention, regardless of the mechanism used. For example, the Australian government is getting an enourmous amount of attention because of the potential undermining of freedom of speech with their internet filter. They didn't even have to kill anyone.

It's the same with throwing acid in the face of immodestly clad women across the middle east. If it was just an angry ex husband taking revenge, it would be regarded as just another crime - as you have often tried to portray it. It gets media attention, not because of Islam per se, but because it is part of a broad, deliberate, and in this case very effective effort to deny women the right to dress as they please. And because people like you try to justify, divert etc.

Quote:

They are all from the lunatic fringe, it's just that the ones coming from Islam are from an organised lunatic fringe.

The organisation is in your head.

The Sikhs who made death threats against the Canadian M.P are not organised?

The green extremists who make death threats against energy executives are not organised?

The Christian militias in the U.S who undergo military training and want to overthrow Obama are not organised?

The only one not organised here fd seems to be you. Not organised enough to work this all out.

Again, I assert, this is nothing but over-hyped sensationalist garbage, and I can't believe there's so many fickle buffoons out there to lap it up.

Quote:

The organisation is in your head.

For a lunatic fringe, they are organised. None of those other groups you mentioned are actively trying to stop the global media from exercising the right to free speech. None of them have killed journalists or cartoonists. The closest thing I can think of is the scientologists, who harass and send lawyers after their enemies, but even they would not stoop to murdering a cartoonist. But they do cop a heap of flak for what they get up to, and they deserve it, just like the muslims who support the dismantling of freedom of speech deserve all the criticism they get. The extent of the threat and the extent of the crimes that have actually been committed are commensurate with the level of media attention they are getting.

BTW Abu, do you support the media's right to publish cartoons of the prophet muhammed?

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 1:42pm:

I wonder if anyone happened to notice any of these other cases of death threats recently? Death threats made to Democrats who voted for Obama's health care reform (25/3/2010) Death threats made against Sikh MP in Canada for "being too liberal" (23/4/2010) Girl, 12, received 7 death threats a day just for having ginger hair (24/4/2010) Australian ironman and aviation entrepeneur receives death threats because his aviation company "makes too much noise" (10/4/2010) Executives receive death threats because recipients of lavish bonuses were going to be named publicly (19/3/2010) Death threats against company executive who was given a government grant to develop geothermal energy (19/01/2010)

Wow, that's pretty awful. Especially that ginger hair one. As for depictions of the prophet, I think it's distasteful and I think muslims have a right to be offended, but I don't think someone should feel threatened.

fd,


Quote:

BTW Abu, do you support the media's right to publish cartoons of the prophet muhammed?

Definitely not!

But I don't support responding with death threats. Muslims need to continue their boycotts as they did with Denmark, and go a step further, and lobby their governments to make the boycotts official across the entire Muslim world. Let us see how those countries would rush to defend the freedom to slander and denigrate after that.

Jaemi,


Quote:

Wow, that's pretty awful. Especially that ginger hair one.

Yeh it's shocking kids should have to grow up with this kind of an environment. It's happening a lot here too nowadays as many high profile suicide cases have recently exposed.


Quote:

As for depictions of the prophet, I think it's distasteful and I think muslims have a right to be offended, but I don't think someone should feel threatened.

100% in accordance with my thoughts.

Quote:

Definitely not!

There you have it Abu. That is why it recieves so much attention - because apparently normal people such as yourself try to paint it as an isolated crime rather than as part of a broader attack on press freedom. It is not the death threat or the murder itself that is scary, but the broader implications for freedom of speech.

I've got no problem with freedom of press, this isn't freedom of press though, it's freedom to slander, denigrate and offend people. That I do have a problem with.

He died 1200 years ago Abu.

If you don't think this is freedom of the press, you don't know what freedom of the press really means. Freedom of speech is only a genuine freedom if it extends people the right to say something you might not like.

I just looked at the cartoons from the 2005 controversy, and it seems like the author's intention was to poke fun Danish peoples' perceptions of the prophet, rather than offend. I still find it a bit distasteful, but I don't think it should be banned, because I have seen distasteful depictions of Jesus or Dawkins, and to be so sensitive to one particular religion, wouldn't that be discriminatory?

fd,


Quote:

He died 1200 years ago Abu.

Irrelevant. Whether it was 5 minutes ago or 5 millenia ago has no effect whatsoever.


Quote:

If you don't think this is freedom of the press, you don't know what freedom of the press really means...

I don't think freedom of the press means the ability to slander or contravene people's religious sanctification. Freedom of press in my view is more about the ability to expose and call to account leaders. To you it seems to be about the ability to create ridiculous things, just to upset people and prove you can do it.

It's really extremely childish if you ask me.

Jaemi,


Quote:

I just looked at the cartoons from the 2005 controversy, and it seems like the author's intention was to poke fun Danish peoples' perceptions of the prophet, rather than offend. I still find it a bit distasteful, but I don't think it should be banned

In Islam, any depiction of Muhammad (pbuh) or any other prophet actually is considered sacrilege and is forbidden. We consider it a fabrication of their appearance and a great disrespect to them, especially when it involves trivialising them in such a manner.


Quote:

because I have seen distasteful depictions of Jesus or Dawkins, and to be so sensitive to one particular religion, wouldn't that be discriminatory?

Yes, it shouldn't be done for Jesus (pbuh) in our opinion.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 26^th, 2010 at 10:08pm:

I've got no problem with freedom of press, this isn't freedom of press though, it's freedom to slander, denigrate and offend people. That I do have a problem with.

Yes fancy the thought of "slandering" a group who call for the death of a teacher who allowed a primary school class to call their teddy bear mohammed, which also happens to be a pretty popular name in certain cultures I hear.

When will muslims get it, calling for death, and often acting on such calls, as retribution for people who do not agree with your religious prejudices is the opposite of religious freedom.
Islam offers, and allows, NO religious freedom.

What right do they use to claim for themselves exclusively, that which they deny all others, universally?

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 27^th, 2010 at 12:18am:

In Islam, any depiction of Muhammad (pbuh) or any other prophet actually is considered sacrilege and is forbidden. We consider it a fabrication of their appearance and a great disrespect to them, especially when it involves trivialising them in such a manner.

Then shouldn't it only be of concern to the Muslim community when a Muslim breaks these rules? Sacrilege isn't exactly illegal.

Quote:

Irrelevant. Whether it was 5 minutes ago or 5 millenia ago has no effect whatsoever.

Yes it does. Otherwise you end up with the absurd situation of not being able to criticise the actions of historical figures, because it might offend them. They are dead.

Quote:

I don't think freedom of the press means the ability to slander or contravene people's religious sanctification.

That's exactly what it means Abu. But yes, we are already aware that you think freedom means freedom to do whatever you consider acceptable. You keep confusing freedom with the opposite of freedom. You can't just say "freedom means .... to me" because you want to believe that your ideology is somehow compatible with freedom.


Quote:

Freedom of press in my view is more about the ability to expose and call to account leaders.

Like Muhammed?


Quote:

To you it seems to be about the ability to create ridiculous things, just to upset people and prove you can do it.

The difference is not always so clear cut Abu, and you deny people freedom by making that judgement for them.


Quote:

It's really extremely childish if you ask me.

Sometimes. Sometimes it is inciteful. Sometimes it is totally in the eyes of the beholder. That is whay it should not be up to you to decide what others can say.


Quote:

In Islam, any depiction of Muhammad (pbuh) or any other prophet actually is considered sacrilege and is forbidden. We consider it a fabrication of their appearance and a great disrespect to them, especially when it involves trivialising them in such a manner.

Except there is nothing in the Koran about it.


Quote:

Sacrilege isn't exactly illegal.

It is under Sharia law.

Jaemi,


Quote:

Then shouldn't it only be of concern to the Muslim community when a Muslim breaks these rules? Sacrilege isn't exactly illegal.

That is a matter of jurisdiction. Since they are doing it in a non-Muslim state, then the Muslims really have no ability to do anything anyway, other than to exert diplomatic pressure (as Sultan Abdul Hamid did for instance when France was going to stage Voltaire's disgusting play slandering Islam). Those who call for vigilante retribution are acting not in accordance with Islam, and the media beat-up claiming they are is just laughable to anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity.

fd,


Quote:

But yes, we are already aware that you think freedom means freedom to do whatever you consider acceptable.

You are right here. But the difference between you and I is that I admit this, you don't. You persist under your delusion that what you consider acceptable is the universal definition of freedom.


Quote:

Except there is nothing in the Koran about it.

As I've made clear to you several times previously, the Qur'an is not the sole source of Islamic legislation. I do not enjoy repeating myself for the sake of your limited attention span.

Quote:

the Qur'an is not the sole source of Islamic legislation.

-Abu


No of course it isn't.
You also have every violent, extremist, zealot, who can get more than two people to listen to him, also proclaiming their interpretation of any bizarre and obscure hadith as compulsory, and immutable law, direct from allah.

Very good point Ammad, just what are the boundaries of acceptable depiction of a man who has been dead for 1400 years or so?

Is a stereotypical representation of any man from that era acceptable?

Must there be a perceived reverence for the subject, and who gets to define how that reverence must be conveyed?

Would a depiction of mohammed leading men into battle be OK, or laughing, or eating, or smiling benignly?

Would a contemporary modern artists style be acceptable, or would only renaissance style realism be the only ideal accepted?

When you look at it like this it does show a particularly subjective need from Islam on an issue that is serious enough to them to demand transgressors from their view be put to death, so perhaps they should consider widening their level of acceptance.

Quote:

Would a depiction of mohammed leading men into battle be OK, or laughing, or eating, or smiling benignly?

Islam does not permit any depiction. Positive or otherwise.


Quote:

You also have every violent, extremist, zealot, who can get more than two people to listen to him, also proclaiming their interpretation of any bizarre and obscure hadith as compulsory, and immutable law, direct from allah.

I think you're confusing Islam for Christianity. Christianity is the religion where any nutter can buy a ranch, invite some families over and declare himself cult-leader. And that's why Christianity is the leader in such cults.

Islam on the other hand is well tied to a strict orthodoxy, and anyone attempting to proclaim himself a leader would be challenged strongly and would not get much support anyway.

Your view of Islam mozza is, as ever, mixed up.

You missed this one Abu. I think it really cuts to the heart of the matter and highlights your hypocrisy.


Quote:

Freedom of press in my view is more about the ability to expose and call to account leaders.

Like Muhammed?


Quote:

You are right here. But the difference between you and I is that I admit this, you don't. You persist under your delusion that what you consider acceptable is the universal definition of freedom.

I support people's freedom to say things I don't like. That's why you are here. I'm not sure why you have such trouble with this concept. Also, if you acknowledge that what you support is not actually freedom, why do you keep saying it is?


Quote:

As I've made clear to you several times previously, the Qur'an is not the sole source of Islamic legislation.

But it is what Muhammed set out for Muslims.


Quote:

Islam on the other hand is well tied to a strict orthodoxy, and anyone attempting to proclaim himself a leader would be challenged strongly and would not get much support anyway.

By "challened strongly" you mean stoned to death, right? As an expression of different 'interpretation' of freedom of speech?

The foreign correspondent show about france's legislating to ban islamic dress codes that mask their women, which was on abc last night, had an interesting interview with a local Imam at a paris mosque who supported the french plan.
He said that islam did not have anything in it to justify the burqua and whatchamacallit mask, and they were merely afghani customs, and were more linked to the taliban and terrorism than they were to any real islamic beliefs.

The french have to pay for round the clock police protection for this man, and his mosque, not from islamophobes, but from muslims who wish to kill him for expressing such an educated and moderate view.

That is the freedom that you wish to preserve abu, the freedom for nutters to threaten and kill the people who may be able to lead islam out of the dark ages.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 10:09pm:

The foreign correspondent show about france's legislating to ban islamic dress codes that mask their women, which was on abc last night, had an interesting interview with a local Imam at a paris mosque who supported the french plan. He said that islam did not have anything in it to justify the burqua and whatchamacallit mask, and they were merely afghani customs, and were more linked to the taliban and terrorism than they were to any real islamic beliefs.

Quote:

In October 2009, Tantawy launched a campaign against the Niqāb (the full-face veil which covers the entire body except for the eyes, increasingly worn by women in Egypt) by personally removing the Niqāb of a teenage girl (after she failed to remove it) at a secondary school affiliated to Al-Azhar University, which he was touring in Cairo's Madinet Nasr suburb, much to the shock of all concerned. He had asked the teenage girl to remove her veil saying: "The Niqāb is a tradition, it has no connection with religion." He then instructed the girl never to wear the Niqāb again and promised to issue a fatwa against its use in schools, saying he was determined to officially ban any person wearing the Niqāb from entering schools dependent on Al-Azhar University.

This is someone else (Grand Mufti of Egypt until 2010), but I thought it would be relevant to throw in.

Yes, it is interesting that highly educated muslims should consider the full face mask thing as nothing to do with Islam, which pretty well rules out any validity for people claiming the right to wear it on religious grounds.

Kids have a way of cutting through the bull, like when my daughter saw a group of women fully masked up in brunswick, she later told me it made her feel bad, she said she felt like they hated her.

She was only very young, and struggled to elucidate why she felt that way, but said that she thought we show how we feel with our faces, with a smile, or a look of concern, and to mask your face from the world was like saying I don't want to know you, and do not want you to know me, which to a child who just wants to be friends with everyone she meets, seemed like hate.

I know it is a childish perspective, but there is also an honesty in how kids see things too.

I love it, they are very, very cool guys at south park, it makes mewant to see World Police again.


So I did not know that NO images of mohammed were allowed, I thought it was just ones they considered disrespectful, and that at least is understandable, from a wacky extremists point of view, but no images at all?
That just seems weird.
Now if a picture is worth a thousand words, does anyone who writes a thousand words about mohammed get a fatwa on them?

Also, if you cannot depict mohammed at all, then I guess there are no movies about his life, like christians have about jesus, which is a shame, cos a lot of them were pretty cool.

It does seem a bit dry that the only way anyone is allowed to learn about mohammed is by having their local authority tell them.
It would be like having the most boring teacher at school describing your favourite movie to you, instead of being allowed to watch it.

I do not get it, why?

This is a serious question Abu.

Do you know why they do not allow any images of mohammed to be portrayed?

fd,


Quote:

Like Muhammed?

Muhammad (pbuh) was the perfect leader. He did not need to be called to account. He ruled perfectly, and established the longest running continual state the world has ever seen.


Quote:

I support people's freedom to say things I don't like. That's why you are here. I'm not sure why you have such trouble with this concept. Also, if you acknowledge that what you support is not actually freedom, why do you keep saying it is?

There are limits to your concept of freedom, as there are to mine. I admit mine is based on my own personal convictions, you do not. You just delude yourself into thinking that because some things you don't like are included in the things you extend freedom to, therefore your concept of freedom is universal and all-pervading. It is not.


Quote:

But it is what Muhammed set out for Muslims.

No it is not. The Qur'an is what God set out for the Muslims. The Hadith are Muhammad's (pbuh) contributions. Again, I've been over this with you plenty of times. If you've forgotten it, then perhaps you could request a refresher course, but don't speak like you think you know something, when quite clearly you do not.


Quote:

By "challened strongly" you mean stoned to death, right? As an expression of different 'interpretation' of freedom of speech?

Fishing for something to put in your wiki again?  ;D

mozza,


Quote:

The french have to pay for round the clock police protection for this man, and his mosque, not from islamophobes, but from muslims who wish to kill him for expressing such an educated and moderate view.

I highly doubt the veracity of this claim. Unless the guy has done something else to upset the Muslims, then I very much doubt he's getting protected for merely saying this. As Jaemi pointed out, even the Grand Mufti of Egypt said this, admittedly he died not long after, but I think from natural causes :)

There is difference of opinion in Islam whether face covering is prescribed or not. Most people adopt the opinion it is not. However there's no doubting it's part of Islam, even if merely as an optional measure of modesty.

The protection claim is probably just hype.


Quote:

Yes, it is interesting that highly educated muslims should consider the full face mask thing as nothing to do with Islam

No more interesting than it is that many many highly educated Muslim women consider it compulsory, and all authentic scholars of Islam consider it either commendable or compulsory.


Quote:

which pretty well rules out any validity for people claiming the right to wear it on religious grounds.

It does no such thing.


Quote:

Kids have a way of cutting through the bull, like when my daughter saw a group of women fully masked up in brunswick, she later told me it made her feel bad, she said she felt like they hated her.

Kids come out with some very warped and strange thinking sometimes, sad that an adult would be docile enough to think it means something though.

What's your thoughts on the tooth fairy mozza?


Quote:

but no images at all?

None, nil, zilch, nada.


Quote:

Also, if you cannot depict mohammed at all, then I guess there are no movies about his life, like christians have about jesus, which is a shame, cos a lot of them were pretty cool.

Well there is one. The scenes with Muhammad (pbuh) are shot from his perspective, which cleverly got around the issue. It's called The Message and although it's a little dated now (from 1976), it is still a classic, and has Anthony Quinn in it, who I'm sure is from your era :)


Quote:

It does seem a bit dry that the only way anyone is allowed to learn about mohammed is by having their local authority tell them.

By all means go watch the film, no need to rely on your local authority to tell you.


Quote:

Do you know why they do not allow any images of mohammed to be portrayed?

Yes. The primary reasons are:

1) Any depiction of him (or any prophet) would be a falsification of them, and falsifying a prophet is akin to disbelieving in him. We also reject the depictions of Jesus (pbuh) and other prophets.

2) It would open the door to deification, as the Christians before us did. When you start creating images of holy people, you begin to over-sanctify them, and this is the path to idolatry, which Islam seeks to prevent. It's a precautionary measure in this sense.

Quote:

Muhammad (pbuh) was the perfect leader. He did not need to be called to account. He ruled perfectly, and established the longest running continual state the world has ever seen.

But surely freedom should allow people who don't believe that to question him? If he was the perfect leader then Muslims have nother to fear from such criticism. After all, this is about what freedom means, not what you think of Muhammed.

Or do you think that if someone declared Kevin Rudd to be perfect, we must all stop criticising him, whether we agree or not?


Quote:

There are limits to your concept of freedom, as there are to mine.

My limits to one individual's freedom are the rights and freedoms of other individuals. Your limits are based on religion, ego etc. Also, you seem to keep switching between whether you believe in a 'different' type of freedom and acknowledging that you oppose freedom.


Quote:

No it is not. The Qur'an is what God set out for the Muslims. The Hadith are Muhammad's (pbuh) contributions.

So God wrote the Koran, and Muhammed 'wrote' (through scribes) the Hadiths?

Quote:

But surely freedom should allow people who don't believe that to question him?

We believe he is beyond reproach in all respects, so no.

Look as I said, this comes down to jurisdiction. Muslims have no jurisdiction to control what happens in non-Muslim countries, so it's moot anyway.


Quote:

Or do you think that if someone declared Kevin Rudd to be perfect, we must all stop criticising him, whether we agree or not?

When he makes his claim for status as emissary of God, ask me again.


Quote:

My limits to one individual's freedom are the rights and freedoms of other individuals. Your limits are based on religion, ego etc.

Your limits... interesting. Look, you've got a few things you consider can overrule freedom, so do I. Placing mine under the umbrella of religion, and claiming yours stand on their own is just a further iteration of what I mentioned above. You think your limits to freedom are universal. Likewise I personally believe mine are universal however I don't promote that idea in this discussion, since I know you don't recognise them as universal. You on the other hand don't seem to come to this realisation.


Quote:

So God wrote the Koran, and Muhammed 'wrote' (through scribes) the Hadiths?

Close. Muhammad (pbuh) did not write the hadith collections per se (through scribes or otherwise). They are collections of corroborated reports of what he said and did. There is about 100 close companions and family members of his who spent a lot of time with him and who narrated his sayings and actions to others, who then related them to others. After about 3 generations, the Muhadditheen (Hadith Specialists) traveled the Islamic world collecting the narrations that corroborated one another, and compiled them into books.

So for instance they traveled to Baghdad, Damascus, Madinah and Makkah and if they heard the same narration in many places, with the exact same wording, and fitting the historical context, and ensuring all links in the chain were of sound mind and character then they would authenticate it and add it to their compilation. There is a lot more to it than that, and the study of hadith authentication is considered one of the more rigorous Islamic sciences.

Quote:

Muslims have no jurisdiction to control what happens in non-Muslim countries, so it's moot anyway.

Well that is precisely the issue Abu, muslims do not accept that they do not have jurisdiction over whatever they think they should, wherever they think they should, and whenever they think they should.

They even carry this idea of having a divine right to universal jurisdiction, by mere dint of the fact that they are muslims, by subjectively judging the deeds of others and applying whatever penalty they deem fit, up to and including summary execution.

That is a major issue for non-muslims to have to deal with, and a significant and valid source of the enmity felt for Islam.

Quote:

We believe he is beyond reproach in all respects, so no. Look as I said, this comes down to jurisdiction. Muslims have no jurisdiction to control what happens in non-Muslim countries, so it's moot anyway.

You sound like you are confused about whether you believe in freedom of speech.


Quote:

When he makes his claim for status as emissary of God, ask me again.

Would your answer change then?


Quote:

You think your limits to freedom are universal.

No Abu. Once you get into the details it is not universal. Rights and freedom always come into conflict. However, the principle of one person's freedom ending where it infringes on the rights and freedoms of another is universal, and it is fundamentally different from your view. You do not merely have a 'different' view of freedom, you oppose it.


Quote:

Likewise I personally believe mine are universal however I don't promote that idea in this discussion, since I know you don't recognise them as universal.

You sound confused again. Are you saying that your concept of freedom is unversal, or that you ideas on how people should be oppressed are universal, even though they aren't universal because people disagree with them?


Quote:

They are collections of corroborated reports of what he said and did.

So the koran is the bit written by Muhammed, hat happens to lack any reference to banning images?

mozza,


Quote:

Well that is precisely the issue Abu, muslims do not accept that they do not have jurisdiction over whatever they think they should, wherever they think they should, and whenever they think they should.

A coupla guys write something in a blog, and you run around claiming "Muslims" do not accept that... If you are going to continually base your opinions of "Muslims" (ie. about 1.6 billion people) on what a few individuals do, then discussing with you is fruitless.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims do accept they have no jurisdiction over it, and do not do that.

Just like the overwhelming majority of Christians don't gun down abortion doctors or the vast majority of atheists don't slaughter millions of people in "purges" of former regimes. You need to learn how to judge people based on the overwhelming majority, not the tiny miniscule minority the media spoonfeeds info about to you. Stop being such a mindless stooge.


Quote:

They even carry this idea of having a divine right to universal jurisdiction

That's funny, because I only see one country invading, threatening, domineering most other countries, claiming it has universal jurisdiction, and it ain't a Muslim one, I'll tell you that now.

Again, when will you wake up from spewing forth this mindless crap?


Quote:

That is a major issue for non-muslims to have to deal with, and a significant and valid source of the enmity felt for Islam.

No, the source of your enmity is your xenophobic bigotry plain and simple. This reminds me of the Nazi propaganda campaigns of explaining away why it was ok to feel hatred towards Jews, since they, through their "internationalist tentacles" had harmed the German people.

You're a sucker for propaganda.

This sums up my answer to your entire post:


Quote:

So the koran is the bit written by Muhammed, hat happens to lack any reference to banning images?

*face palm*

What part of "The Qur'an is what God set out for the Muslims. The Hadith are Muhammad's (pbuh) contribution" did you not understand? Either you're doing your best to wear down my patience (knowing your arguments are pathetic and indefensible) or you're not the quickest off the mark.

When you say what actually happened it sounds like you are saying Muhammed wrote the Koran and other people wrote the hadiths.

How does this sum up your response to the rest of my post? Are you claiming to be an expert on freedom of speech as well now? Instead of just repeating that my 'version' of freedom is no more or less valid than your 'version', why don't you try to back it up? It is very easy to criticise your 'version' of freedom, because it is obviously not freedom. Why can you not make the same criticism of my version?

Quote:

When you say what actually happened it sounds like you are saying Muhammed wrote the Koran and other people wrote the hadiths.

Nope it's quite clear. The Qur'an is the word of God (since you don't believe in God anyway, I guess that one's kind of irrelevant to you), and the hadith are the words of Muhammad (pbuh).

Both the Qur'an and the Hadith were of course conveyed to us through Muhammad (pbuh) and a chain of narrators from his time until they were recorded. Without wanting to complicate it further, there's also Hadith Qudsi which is the words of God that Muhammad (pbuh) conveyed to us, but not as part of the Qur'an.

Quote:

and a chain of narrators from his time until they were recorded.

The Koran was recorded under Mo's direction, right? And the rest over the following centuries?

If you cannot pay the basic respect of writing his name properly, don't bother conversing on the topic.

Perhaps if I didn't have to repeat the question a dozen times to get a straight answer I wouldn't take to shortening it.

Hadith are based on the teachings of Muhammad, his sayings and the way he lived his life. When you read them, it tells you which one of Muhammad's companions is relating the story. If something isn't clearly covered in the Quran, scholars turn to hadith. There are different versions and different levels of accuracy.

If you really want to know and are not just trying to be provocative, most muslims would agree that the '40 hadith' are a good place to start. Your local mosque or Islamic centre would have a copy and I'm willing to bet if you asked them for one, they'd treat you with love and respect and hand it right on over. Or you could google.

Quote:

Perhaps if I didn't have to repeat the question a dozen times to get a straight answer

Mate I have answered you very clearly. The Qur'an is the words of God and the Hadith are the words of Muhammad (pbuh).

It doesn't get much clearer.

I am sure it is very clear to you, but it doesn't actually answer the question, does it?

Is the Koran the one that was recorded under Mohammed's direction, and the hadiths in the following centuries?

I'll give you a tip to help you give a straight answer - this is not a question about whether God wrote it, but about when.