Cartoon of Hadhrat Muhammad (saw) and Hadhrat Isa (as) – [MUST READ]

Assalamu ‘Alaikum brothers and sisters,

The below message was just sent in to me (by several people!!!!). I thought I would share it with you all. Please contribute towards this and spread the word. While some people are incredibly immoral and unethical, there are others who simply do not understand the love that each Muslim holds for the Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam).

JazakAllah

Hand of Talha

_________________________________________

ACTION REQUIRED FROM KHUDDAM

Cartoon of Hadhrat Muhammad (saw) and Hadhrat Isa (as)

Background

You are all aware, I’m sure, of the UCL debate, Some weeks back, the YouTube clip of which has gone viral. The Atheist Society of UCL have now posted a cartoon depicting Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) and the Holy Prophet Jesus (as) having a beer (God forbid) at a pub frequented by some of the UCL students.

Needless to say, it is tasteless, disrespectful, completely unnecessary, and adds no value to any meaningful debates taking place. The cartoon has been posted on the society’s Facebook page and they do not appear to want common sense to prevail by removing the image, citing freedom of speech. Even Richard Dawkins has commented in favour of the Atheist society on his website, and the country’s most popular atheist magazine has given full coverage to this. Because of this other Atheist society members have also now started to post variations of these cartoons.

It is now time for you, as Servants and lovers of the Holy Prophet (saw) and the Slaves of God to defend the Honour of the Most Beloved of God. Your quick response to this growing issue is of utmost importance.

Action
1. An e-petition has been started here. Please ensure that you and your loved ones add your support to the petition. 2. This incident is being discussed on various websites, blogs, and facebook pages. Some of these forums have been listed below. You are urged to visit those sites and add your voice of support for common sense, tolerance, and mutual respect to prevail. The external links are as follows:

  • AMSA UCL Response: UCLU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society confuse Freedom of Speech with Freedom to Insult: Click Here
  • UCLU ASH page: Click Here
  • New Humanist Blog. The most popular Atheist magazine in UK (AMSA UCL is mentioned): Click Here
  • Richard Dawkin’s Weblog: Click Here

3. A Press Release has been published here. Members are welcome to use this for contacting their local press.

4. The issue has been raised, and is being discussed, on our website ”The Art of Misinformation,” and so you are invited to add your voice to that discussion by commenting.

Note: Please remember that it is not illegal for someone to offend and those posting these images are under no legal obligation to remove them. It is simply our hope that those posting the images remember their ethical and moral responsibility to utilise the great freedoms granted to them under British law with respect and social cohesion in mind. Ultimately, our only task here is to pray and request that our fellow citizens posting these cartoons join us in promoting, both in word and action, our universal motto: Love for all, Hatred for none.

Members are reminded that when we are faced with abuse we should ensure that our responses are marked by wisdom and good manners.

Lastly, members are reminded that our success is only possible through the power of prayer. Please pray for the hearts of those who burden a dislike for Islam are moved towards love and tolerance.

JazakAllah

Your servant in Islam

Fahim Anwer
Sadr Majlis Khuddamul Ahmadiyya UK

Advertisements

39 thoughts on “Cartoon of Hadhrat Muhammad (saw) and Hadhrat Isa (as) – [MUST READ]

  1. Dear Tim Bus,

    Here’s my answer:

    1. Tim Bus argues: “Tell that to the 7th century writers of the koran/sunna/hadith, with their supremacism (hence derogation of kuffar), ‘apes and pigs’ insults, division of the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb (with attempts to convert the latter to the former), and the lunatic ragings of Andy Choudary, just for starters.”

    1. Moosa’s response:

    1a. Regarding derogation of “kuffar”, this is in a certain context which cannot be ignored. The Qur’an does not criticise the “kuffar” in the sense of innocent little children who don’t believe in God. It criticises the “kuffar” in the sense of those people that tortured women and men who simply said, “We believe in God”. What you need to understand is that at the time when the Qur’an was being revealed, the “kuffar” were the dominant power in Arabia, inflicting all sorts of oppression and crimes against the minority muslims. When the muslims finally gained ascendancy, during the last years of the life of Muhammad (pboh), the muslims forgave the vast majority of the “kuffar” and only executed a few who had committed quite abominable crimes. Therefore we muslims have full right to talk about “peaceful coexistence”.

    1b. “Dar al-Islam” and “Dar al-Harb” isn’t from the “7th century writers”, as you allege. Please make a little effort to research before you write about Islam, you can find these things even on google or wikepedia. Those terminology “Dar al-Islam” aren’t found in the Qur’an or any pronouncements of Muhammad (pboh). Those terms were invented by a scholar called Ibn Taimiyya much later, in the 13th century. Interestingly, these concepts were a response to the mongols who were invading and attacking muslims. Again you’ll find the muslims as defenders rather than aggressors.

    1c. Andy Choudary… 7th century writer… you’re joking, right?

    1d. Apes and pigs… really not an insult at all. It’s actually a compliment. Apes and pigs don’t torture and persecute people like the disbelievers did at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pboh). Apes and pigs actually behave much better than those particular disbelievers. If you disagree, then please find me an ape or a pig who deliberately starves people, puts hot rocks on the chests of people, murders people, tortures people, abuses people… just because of their beliefs? In fact, these disbelievers were evil, but God is kind to them and gives them the benefit of the doubt by saying they are like apes (ignorant and wild) and pigs (shameless), but not purely evil.

    1e. It’s interesting who you think are the writers of the Qur’an? Please tell me the names of any likely candidates?

    2. Tim Bus’s argument: “I couldn’t agree more, that’s why we have laws, and things ARE regulated, and not chaotic, even if not exactly to your liking. But you’re frying a different fish. You won’t be satisfied until NO ONE says ANYTHING negative about ANY PART of your ideology, or any of its practitioners, living or dead.”

    2. Moosa’s response: Tim, calm down. No point in writing in CAPS, I evaluate your writings on the basis of their rationality, not on the basis of your CAPS or how loud you shout. Please provide a paragraph, a sentence, even a word from anybody here which justifies your wild allegation that we won’t be satisfied until nobody says anything negative about any part of our beliefs? It seems that you’re unable to provide any rational argument, so now you’re trying to invent a new “scary ahmadi muslim” who wants to stop you from arguing against our religion. Such an ahmadi muslim doesn’t exist. We all have repeatedly and categorically stated that you can criticise Islam as much as you like with rational arguments. In fact, we welcome such criticism. Regarding mockery, we also allow that, but we don’t welcome that because it’s not a constructive intellectual process which can improve anything, it can only lead to anger and ill-will.

    3. Tim Bus’s argument: “The questions then become: WHO will decide the regulations? WHO will enforce the regulations? WHAT will the regulations be? And the answer will be the O.I.C. THEY will outlaw EVERY commentary from EVERY source, that doesn’t meet THEIR guidelines. In practice, thoughtful negative criticisms from mohammedan scholars will be accepted at times, and others not. Any comment might be accepted by one cleric, but rejected by another. God help the scholar if he is ‘deemed’ to have blasphemed. And God help any ‘infidel’ who will have the temerity to disagree with any jot or tittel of mohammed’s creation.”

    3. Moosa’s response: No. That’s not our proposal. We’re proposing that any intellectual argument should be encouraged, from any muslim or non-muslim. We’re also saying mockery should be allowed, but discouraged. We propose that there’s a difference between intellectual argument and rudeness. Rudeness isn’t intellectual. Even an ape can be rude. An ape can’t put forward an intellectual argument, though. We think it’s better to argue like a human than like an ape. We hope you agree.

    4. Tim Bus’s argument: “Be very, VERY careful what you call for. There are those who consider YOU infidels, just as you consider your mohammedanism the ONLY true faith. Two other, MUCH larger groups each consider that ONLY they are in possession of the truth. You could find yourself on the thick end of the big stick of censorship.”

    4. Moosa’s response: But we haven’t proposed any censorship. We’ve proposed (hmm… I think this is the fourth time I’m saying this?) complete freedom of intellectual argument, discouragement of mockery. We believe in freedom of intellectual argument, because we believe that free intellects will eventually lead to the triumph of the truest and best ideology, therefore we don’t have any fear of “MUCH larger groups”.

    5. Tim Bus’s argument: “There are some substantial ideas in this reply. Calling them ‘nit-picking’ again, will only reflect negatively on you to other readers. If you don’t wish to answer, that’s OK.”

    5. Moosa’s response: Not a single substantial idea from you, that I can see. Not ‘nit-picking’ either. In fact, the best description of your writings is “misrepresentation”. You’ve completely misrepresented our standpoint, and then you’ve repeated that misrepresentation several times in several different forms, and then you’ve written in CAPS all your arguments against this illusory phantom belief which we don’t even believe in. You’ve also somehow connected Andy Choudury (Anjem Choudary?) with the 7th century. Tim Bus, you basically have no credible argument. It’s fine if atheists don’t believe in God, but at least you should believe in honesty… if you’re not being truthful in your arguments, then how can we have any kind of meaningful discussion?

    Peace,
    Moosa

  2. @ Baboucarr A.S. Sowe January 17, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    “Basic rationality, knowledge and sincerity teaches that the deliberate hurting of peoples feelings is not compatible with peaceful coexistence and above all, its outside the circle of 21st century of human civilization!!!!”

    Tell that to the 7th century writers of the koran/sunna/hadith, with their supremacism (hence derogation of kuffar), ‘apes and pigs’ insults, division of the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb (with attempts to convert the latter to the former), and the lunatic ragings of Andy Choudary, just for starters.

    So there it is again, projection; while the pot calls the kettle ‘sooty bottom’.

    @ Raziya January 18, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    “Freedom has to be regulated to live in a civilized world. Otherwise, we’ll all end up in chaos and conflict to the detriment of the human race.”

    I couldn’t agree more, that’s why we have laws, and things ARE regulated, and not chaotic, even if not exactly to your liking. But you’re frying a different fish. You won’t be satisfied until NO ONE says ANYTHING negative about ANY PART of your ideology, or any of its practitioners, living or dead.

    The questions then become: WHO will decide the regulations? WHO will enforce the regulations? WHAT will the regulations be? And the answer will be the O.I.C. THEY will outlaw EVERY commentary from EVERY source, that doesn’t meet THEIR guidelines. In practice, thoughtful negative criticisms from mohammedan scholars will be accepted at times, and others not. Any comment might be accepted by one cleric, but rejected by another. God help the scholar if he is ‘deemed’ to have blasphemed. And God help any ‘infidel’ who will have the temerity to disagree with any jot or tittel of mohammed’s creation.

    Be very, VERY careful what you call for. There are those who consider YOU infidels, just as you consider your mohammedanism the ONLY true faith. Two other, MUCH larger groups each consider that ONLY they are in possession of the truth. You could find yourself on the thick end of the big stick of censorship.

    There are some substantial ideas in this reply. Calling them ‘nit-picking’ again, will only reflect negatively on you to other readers. If you don’t wish to answer, that’s OK.

  3. Dear Brother Moosa

    I do not have your email address, and I had requested our respected moderator to kindly get in contact with you to explain my point. Please note that one of my posts has also been withheld by Admin. It regards a point related to your post which would best be discussed in private rather than on a public forum.

    Also, my apologies for calling you “Doctor”. I had thought that would be standard politeness, but in future I will stick to your name.

    If our dear moderator could send me your email, I will get in contact with you as soon as I can, Insha Allah.

  4. Dear Admin,

    I’m not offended, but you’ve amended my last post again. Peace4everynation has posted multiple messages on this website but I have not yet received any e-mail from him. I therefore request that you post my previous comment and also put my last comment in its original full format.

    Jazak Allah.

    Moosa

  5. Apologies, I was not aware that something similar had been expressed officially by the Ahmadiyya community. Good to hear this news.

    I would appreciate if I am not quoted as “Dr Moosa Qureshi”. My medical title is not relevant for this discussion, I prefer to be known as “Moosa” and I prefer my arguments to be accepted on merit rather than on my academic qualifications.

    My understanding is this website’s policy is “Feel free to engage in open and frank discussion and never feel that any question is too tough or inappropriate. The only thing we humbly ask is that all comments should not be abusive or contain profanity.”

    My post was not abusive and did not contain profanity. Why was it not approved?

    Peace,
    Moosa

    [Admin: You are correct. I posted the comment this morning and was then requested very politely if I could put it on pause by Peace4EveryNation just until he had a chance to quickly discuss something related to it with you via e-mail. As you are obviously a reasonable person, I thought there no harm in agreeing to this in principle. If you do not wish to have that discussion then by all means let me know and I will post your comment. No offence intended. Jazak Allah brother]

  6. Dr Qureshi, I think that instead of:

    “this is not the “official” explanation of the Ahmadiyya community, this is only my way of looking at it.”

    You may have liked to declare that:

    “this is not NECESSARILY the “official” explanation of the Ahmadiyya community, but is my way of looking at it.”

    You will find that similar views have indeed been expressed in our Urdu literature.

  7. One must not forget that the Ka’bah belonged as much to Muslim Meccans as it did to idol-worshipping Meccans. Once the Muslims of Mecca were in a position of control, it was their prerogative to do with their house of worship whatever they pleased, just as idol-worshipping Meccans had done previously. Full of idols, the Ka’bah was in no condition to become the focal point for the prayers of Muslims. The natural thing to do was for the idols to be removed by the Muslim Meccans to whom the Ka’bah also belonged.

    I agree that from that point onward, it may appear that removing them would have been enough, so why resort to smashing them? To the casual observer, this may seem to be excessive. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was in fact meting out a mild punishment to those who had mercilessly killed, tortured, starved, boycotted and persecuted him, his family and his followers for many long, painful years, by smashing their idols instead of wiping them out as retribution for their many crimes. As Dr Moosa Qureshi states above, any other army seeking revenge would probably not have left any of them alive, so idol-smashing seems to be an extremely mild punishment, though one befitting the mercifulness of the most merciful of prophets.

  8. Dear Dhimmislam and Red Star,

    It is not a matter of historical or archaeological proofs. The question posed was: why did Muhammad (pboh) rid the Kaaba of all idols on conquering Makkah, if he believed in religious tolerance. The answer given by one person here was: Muhammad (pboh) believed that the Kaaba was originally built by Abraham (pboh) for the worship of the One True God, had subsequently been usurped by idolatrers, and he was therefore simply returning it back to its original state. This was his sincere belief, and his actions should be evaluated according to his belief, not according to historical or archaeological proofs which were not available to him.

    I must admit that I personally find this episode one of the few “problems” of Islam which are difficult to understand and explain. I am not entirely convinced by peace4everynation’s explanation.

    My explanation is: you should remember that the idolatrers had persecuted Muhammad (pboh) and his followers mercilessly for many years, mutilated and tortured them, starved them, driven them from Makkah, tried to assassinate Muhammad (pboh), sieged the muslims in Madina and many other atrocities. Why did they do this? Their only reason for doing this was because Muhammad (pboh) had proclaimed One God and taught that idolatry was a mistaken belief. In that age, the normal medieval custom would have been for all these idolatrers to be killed on the conquest of Makkah, because they had persecuted the muslims so terribly. This was the practise of the Romans and Persians and other great empires of the time. Even by modern standards, many of the idolatrers deserved execution for their crimes which included murder and torture. However, Muhammad (pboh) granted clemency to the population at large on entering Makkah as a victor, an act of mercy which has never been replicated (in quality and quantity) in human history. He spared their lives but he did destroy their idols. Why was this? My idea is that this was Muhammad (pboh)’s justifiable retaliation for their persecution: “I will not kill your lives, but I will kill your rationale for persecuting me, I will destroy the idols which motivated your murder and torture of muslims for the last 20 years”.

    Red Star, in particular, it’s not fair for you to characterise this as an act of pure vandalism. It had a theological and historical context. The Romans and the Persians would simply have slaughtered all the idolatrers, this would have been completely justified by all contemporary standards of justice. Muhammad (pboh)’s methodology was far more eloquent and merciful: “You killed my people because of your idols; in response, I will not kill your people, but I will kill your idols”.

    I must emphasise this is not the “official” explanation of the Ahmadiyya community, this is only my way of looking at it.

    Peace,
    Moosa

  9. Again, you have left all the most important themes aside, like the fact that GOD is speaking to Ahmadi Muslims profusely and on a regular basis, truly telling them about the future. Maybe that isn’t proof enough for you that God is here. That was the proof all of the Biblical prophets had that they were truly in communication with the Creator of the Universe, and it was enough proof in their eyes. That doesn’t seem to interest you, even if you are unable to show that God is also entertaining a similar relationship with you. And mind you, I say this without an atom of pride, for God grants His favours to whomsoever He pleases, and blesses those who honour His messengers with His holy converse. We are nothing but humble souls, yet God has kept His promise to Ahmad, the Messiah (pbuh) that He would speak to those who were humble enough to accept him and follow him.

    To answer your question, that would be the God of Abraham (pbuh), whatever you want to call him, YHWH or Eloah or Elohim, which is ALLAH in the Arabic tongue – and incidentally, this explains the fact that many Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians call upon the God of Abraham by the name of ALLAH, which for them means nothing else than the Biblical God. The Arab tribes of the Hedjaz are descendants of Abraham through Ishmael (pbuh), and they would not have known any god but the God of Abraham and Ishmael; and this is how they continued to worship Him until many centuries later, when they slid into idol-worship.

    The proof that we worship the Biblical God is that today He continues to speak to us. Neither man nor Satan has access to the hidden secrets of the future; such knowledge is God’s sole prerogative and none can dare approach it.

    The proof of the origin of the Ka’bah is therefore before your very eyes. The Biblical God would not reveal His secrets to those who pray towards a House built for idols. He would only speak to those who turn to a House built for His Own worship. The proof is under your very nose, my dear.

    So… Are you not going to return with a more loving username than DHIMMISLAM? Is that the hallmark of your civility? Do you really think that by using such ugly methods you will be able to turn good people away from the True God Who now speaks to the people of Islam?

    Or are you going to ignore most of this and just press on with your nit-picking like one frustrated or obsessed?

  10. “If you had read up on your Islamic history properly, instead of skim-reading and forever jumping to conclusions, you would have known that the Ka’bah had been built for the worship of the One True God of Abraham…”

    That would be JHVH? Would you please indicate the historical/archaeological proofs of that statement, without the circular arguments of the koran/sunna/hadith?

  11. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet. Choosing not to respond to any of the arguments you instead start nit-picking. Read up on the tone of some of Red Star’s comments on this blog, and see how he/she has been wasting our time here by patently refusing to read properly, and yes, jumping to conclusions, and then you may find that my responses have been rather mild.

    But then again, maybe you won’t. You have an agenda. You hate Islam. I find your username very offensive. Are you a Christian who obeys Jesus? Probably not, otherwise you would never use such a name.

  12. “I also agree that everyone must have the right to criticise, but in an academic and courteous way, not in a rude, insulting manner[A].

    If you had read up on your Islamic history properly[B], instead of skim-reading[C] and forever jumping to conclusions[D], you would have known that the Ka’bah had been built for the worship of the One True God of Abraham…”

    Perhaps you should find someone to edit your responses, so that you follow your own advice, as [B, C, and D] seem to be good examples of [A], but I know you will have some argument to confirm your justification of the apparently insulting tone.

    Note that I am accusing you only of inconsistency. Others might accuse you of projection, or supremacism.

  13. Brother, perhaps you should post this in German for someone to translate here…I’m not too sure what some of it you wrote was about.

  14. God has sent many prophets to many religions in this world was created, and we should respect all religions just like your food to get you to the happiness you should appreciate what to get you have your there are many things and things in this world the word “Allah” has been created and which we must respect.

  15. I had a dream in which I saw the present Khalifah and woke up crying for 2 hours straight and not understanding why I was crying because I didn’t feel sad.

    I was once talking about a sign fulfilled for the Promised Messiah (pbuh) and then randomly in a bookstore opened up a book at random and noticed it said exactly what I was thinking of.

    There are tons of incidents like these, and some Ahmadi Muslims get verbal revelation in fact. However, they do not reveal this to the world out of humility.

    I do not take those 2 incidents to make me righteous or anything, in fact I am the lowest of the low. I just list those since you asked.

    Peace be upon you.

  16. Who has taken away your right. Attack Islam with intellect all that you want. Put up a distasteful and offensive cartoon and it is only ”human” that the person you hurt will raise their voice and say: ”Why did you do that, you knew it would hurt me?”

    Two people live in a house and one wakes to find a derogatory drawing of his/her beloved grandfather stuck on the fridge. Relationship broken and a house filled with tension. If however, the person was simply approached and told, ”I have a real issue with your grandfather for these reasons (1,2,3.)” then there may be hard feelings, but at least there will be respect that the individual had the courage and decency to air their dislike in an adult way.

    It is just common sense and not taking away freedom of choice. Besides, AMYA only requested that UCLU consider taking it down as a sign of goodwill and respect. If, as you have argued, ”human being is sacred,” then they would have chosen goodwill over continued offence – humanity over ”what is best for me.”

  17. Why should religion be immune to criticism? I will fight for your right to believe, but I won’t allow you to take away my right to question your beliefs.

    “It is the human being who is sacred not beliefs or religion.” – Maryam Namizie

  18. I also agree that everyone must have the right to criticise, but in an academic and courteous way, not in a rude, insulting manner.

    If you had read up on your Islamic history properly, instead of skim-reading and forever jumping to conclusions, you would have known that the Ka’bah had been built for the worship of the One True God of Abraham (on whom be peace), and that it had been usurped by idolaters later on and turned into a house of idols. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) restored it to its former state, the state in which it had been built, and returned it to worshippers of the God of Abraham.

    Everywhere in Islamic countries houses of worship full of idols have been maintained and have survived up to now, despite sporadic appearances of extremists who, contrary to the teachings of Islam, tried to deface or vandalise them. On the whole, they were left untouched. Otherwise, nothing would have remained of the statues of ancient Egypt, or the temples of India, and even the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan lasted all these centuries only to be destroyed a few years ago by US-financed and -trained Taliban extremists. Houses of worship built for idols were left alone. But, as I said above, the Ka’bah had been unjustly taken over from monotheists by idol-worshippers, and its case is totally different.

    As for regular conversations with God, I never said that I personally have regular conversations (if only you took the time to read carefully). I said: “Why, WE have evidence of this type all the time. ” All of us experience this phenomenon of God revealing things to us every so often, but if you add up all these experiences in our community, you will find it is happening regularly.

    You still won’t do the courtesy of saying that if you receive evidence you will believe in God. Have you made your mind up that whatever the evidence, you will never believe? I hope not, because that would not be an honest way to behave.

    In my life, I have been told things in advance many times, and that is nothing extraordinarily special; I know several individuals who have received far more than I ever have.

    I was informed by an angel in a dream of my A-Level results a week ahead of their release. My mother and grandmother are witness to its fulfilment. The angel showed me my results on a piece of paper, and that is exactly what I got. I had not been expecting such satisfying results at all. In fact, I had previously thought I was going to fail miserably, as I had been very much affected by a death in my family.

    I was informed in a dream that my first two children would be boys, at a time when I had just got married.

    I was told, again in a dream, at the very beginning of April 1992 that war had now broken out in ex-Yugoslavia, at a time when I knew absolutely nothing of what was going on there.

    I was told in 2002 in a vision by an angel while I was awake, that a young neighbour of mine would get three C’s in his A-Level results, and that despite this being below the minimum requirements for him to study civil engineering at the university of his choice, he would still be accepted by them. He sent in his application and… was turned down due to his results being sub-standard. Nevertheless, the word of God is true. Thus, a few days before the academic year started, the university contacted him and asked him if he still wanted the seat, because a student they had accepted had suddenly pulled out. He was quite astonished, and of course took it. He is now a civil engineer, and he still lives next door to me, should you ever want to contact him and ask him for yourself what happened.

    As far as future events are concerned, a great number of Ahmadi Muslims are being told through dreams and visions that World War III is now imminent; and that destruction is going to be very severe. Some have been told that the destruction is going to be particularly horrendous in the US, UK, Turkey and Australia. Yet, we are praying that it be averted somehow. At any rate, you will be able to witness the truth of this for yourself, if you are still around when it happens. And I do wish you a long and happy life, despite what you may think of me. As a human being, I love you, though I do not at all like the insulting and mocking tones you constantly flavour your statements with, and hope you will realise that it is better for you that you change your tone and show respect and courtesy to others. There is always a nicer way to state or ask things – it’s for you to choose whether you prefer to be hurtful or kind.

  19. “Everyone should have the right to religious freedom. But to criticize other religions, this shouldn’t be allowed. This is simply inhumane.”

    So when you criticise Christianity, or Hinduism, or ancient idolatrous religions, you are being ‘simply inhumane’??? Was Muhammad being ‘simply humane’ when he destroyed the idols in the Ka’aba? That’s more than criticisng other religions, it’s vandalising their place of worship! Do you condone such violence and vandalism?

    “And if I do tell you such a thing, will you then believe He is there, or are you only doing this just for the sake of mockery, once again?

    What is the point of throwing away such gems on mockers? So, first tell the world here what you will do.”

    You said there was evidence…where is it? When I ask you for it, you say there is no point in sharing it. Is that, perhaps, because it doesn’t exist? If you can’t see any point in sharing your evidence (from your ‘regular’ conversations with your God) I have no good reason to believe in your imaginary friend, do I?

    I didn’t ask what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says on the matter or what was ‘revealed’ to him. I asked YOU what GOD SAID TO YOU – because you claimed to have REGULAR CONVERSATIONS with him.

  20. I think people should be able to criticise religion as that is an important part of freedom. What matters is how it is done. If a person is mean and hurtful in their approach they should be reminded about good manners but then leave it to them unless they end up stirring hatred, which then the relevant authorities would need to take a decision for the public good. Criticism is an important part of identifying the truth of any idea and must nOt be restricted. Bad manners should be the think condemned but ultimately left to the individual to decide what to do in my humble opinion

  21. Everyone should have the right to religious freedom. But to criticize other religions, this shouldn’t be allowed. This is simply inhumane.

  22. Faith in God is free to people.
    But the hurt from other people of faith is not regarded as freedom of expression.

  23. In the meantime, read this small sample:

    https://theartofmisinformation.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/the-revival-of-true-sainthood/

    And if you want to know more about the phenomenon of divine revelation as it has been unfolding in recent times, read this, which contains words of God revealed to Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (peace be upon him), visions and prophecies:

    http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Tadhkirah.pdf

    It is a lot to read, but is something that one who has a scholarly inclination will find enlightening, and only one who is childishly impatient will find uninteresting.

    Finish reading that and then come back with your questions on this topic.

  24. And if I do tell you such a thing, will you then believe He is there, or are you only doing this just for the sake of mockery, once again?

    What is the point of throwing away such gems on mockers? So, first tell the world here what you will do.

  25. “a God Who speaks to us regularly”

    Really? And what does your God said to you in your regular conversations?

    “He may then tell you of something about to happen in future that there is no way you could know all by yourself”

    Go on then – tell us all one thing your God has told you that is about to happen in the future that we could not know by ourselves?

  26. What? Not a shred of evidence for a God Who speaks to us regularly, informing us of what is coming in the future? Why, we have evidence of this type all the time. You guys have not been spoken to yet – probably due to your serious lack of respect and your blatant irreverence.

    If you start behaving nicely to others, and sincerely speak to God and ask Him to reveal Himself to you in some convincing way, He may well do so, as He has done in the case of millions of us. He may then tell you of something about to happen in future that there is no way you could know all by yourself. Then you will know for sure that He is there.

    No shred of evidence indeed!

  27. “serious deficiency in rationality”

    I’m sorry, is believing in a [deleted] (for which there is not a shred of evidence) or that we will all either go to a fluffy theme park (for which there is not a shred of evidence) or a stone-fired barbecue (for which there is not a shred of evidence) when we die the height of rationality?

    Give me a break.

    “Basic rationality, knowledge and sincerity teaches that the deliberate hurting of peoples feelings is not compatible with peaceful coexistence and above all, its outside the circle of 21st century of human civilization!!!!”

    Basic rationality, knowledge and sincerity teaches that a medieval religion of violent conquest, mysoginistic oppression, deliberate cruelty, self-aggrandisement and absurd rituals is outside the circle of 21st century of human civilisation.

    Unfortunately, it appears that your rationality, knowledge and sincerity forgot to teach you that!

  28. I totally agree with Baboucarr’s comments. I cannot understand why Atheists want to be offensive to the believers. To what purpose? In the name of ‘freedom’. Freedom has to be regulated to live in a civilized world. Otherwise, we’ll all end up in chaos and conflict to the detriment of the human race.

    These Atheists are truly deficient in many things as mentioned in the comment above!

  29. I cannot really understand why Atheist are so keen in hurting the feelings of believers (Muslims, Christians, etc). I believe in as much as they have the right not to believe in God they do not have the right to disrespect believes in any way. Their attitude towards believers is basically to incite violence an disorder. If this a core value in their belief system, then am afraid that Atheism is in gross conflict to human civilization… These ill actions of theirs will rather make many to believe that their failure to appreciate the existence of God is simply secondary to some form of serious deficiency in rationality, Knowledge and truth that they suffered some were along the line!!! Basic rationality, knowledge and sincerity teaches that the deliberate hurting of peoples feelings is not compatible with peaceful coexistence and above all, its outside the circle of 21st century of human civilization!!!!

  30. During this time we should send more blessings on The Chief of Prophets Hazrat Mohammad Mustafa(Peace and Blessings of Allah be Upon Him).
    Every minute millions of Muslims sends greetings and darood on Hazrat Mohammad(Saw), tell me is there any human being that is remembered every minute all over the world? I think its our duty to show these people the true life of Hazrat Mohammad(saw).
    I understand that some people with twisted brains will obviously continue to abuse Mohammad(saw), for them we shouldn’t be bothered about too much for Allah will judge them on judgement day. We should just continue to adopt the character of Hazrat Mohammad(saw) as best as we can and pray for the misguided.

  31. @ Raziya on January 12, 2012 at 6:00 am

    “What about THE FACT that their actions result in unrest and even loss of life, sometimes?” [CAPS added]

    Will any Ahmadis decry this blatant canard? It does not make you look good, only stupid. Everyone knows that NO ONE was killed by the Danish mohammed cartoons. But two malicious imams, Ahmed Akkari and Ahmad Abu Laban who were allowed to live in Denmark, showed their gratitude by spitting on the country which hosted them.

    When their efforts at sh*t-stirring and rabble-rousing did not yield the desired riots, they upped the ante. THEY added three DELIBERATELY OFFENSIVE ‘cartoons’. Actually, one was a French photograph, totally unrelated to mohammed, to which THEY added his name, a much greater offense than the original 12 cartoons, and for which they have never been punished. They then touted them around the Middle East, until they found governments wishing for a distraction from internal problems. Said governments (which only allow permitted demonstrations) then called in their most inflammatory religious leaders, who then gathered and inflamed their ‘rent-a-mob’ radicals, and bussed them to the Danish embassies for ‘spontaneous’ combustions. As a result of their Machiavellian tricks, over 100 mohammedans died, and several hundred million dollars damages occurred.

    This was all detailed in a Danish produced BBC4 video documentary, shown some years later. For some reason, it does not show up clearly on the internet, but I believe this is it:

    http://www.whydemocracy.net/film/11

    So, I’m sorry, Raziya is out to lunch with her comments.

  32. Of course you are correct that people should not go round burning embassies etc no matter what another person has done but you cannot deny that by actively insulting the feelings of a large community that lives in your society you are acting very childish yourself and lack any sympathy for people which means you are not a person who can claim that their principles will bring peace to the world. In fact you must admit that you are not interested in a peaceful society at all. Just like you would want me refraining from insulting your dear ones and advertising my insults to you all over the web, we feel the same. It all boils down to whether or not you want to be a good decent human being. If you don’t care about that then I have nothing further to say.

  33. “do they (atheists) have the right to abuse and make fun of the beliefs and men of God of the majority of humankind?” – Yes, course they do. No sacred beliefs are, nor should be, beyond mockery and ridicule.

    To say in support of your argument for censorship that censorship is needed because otherwise the offended will have a temper tantrum and go burn down embassies, loot, riot and kill many innocent people is NO argument. All that reveals is a level of immaturity and childishness that needs addressing during the upbringing of the offended.

    And citing sheer numbers of people who believe something is no argument: a Billion people believing in the god thor for example doesn’t make thor anymore real.

  34. While Atheists have a right to NOT believe in a God, do they have the right to abuse and make fun of the beliefs and men of God of the majority of humankind? They accord all this offensive material to ‘freedom of speech’. What about the fact that their actions result in unrest and even loss of life, sometimes? Therefore, what about the majority’s right to PEACE? It would require a sick mind to deliberately cause havoc in the world. The ONLY conclusion which could be reached by such offensive material being posted all over the Internet is that the perpetrator/s reason is to cause trouble and havoc.

    Another reason such cartoons are created and posted is because these Atheists do not believe in a God, but have no satisfactory answer to give to the ones who do. Their only answer is to be abusive in return since they don’t care about the consequences.

Join the Discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s