Dutch MP posts Islam film on web

[~JuSt*A*MaN~]

Well, a noble verse indeed A-Fighter, and very comforting.

Untill we look at the FULL version of the verse, which is...

5:32: "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. "

Notice the difference ? Killing IS sanctioned in the case of manslaughter, or "corruption in the earth". So what is 'corruption in the earth' ? Well...in a nutshell.. it means NOT beleiving in Mohammed/Allah, and defying the spread of Islam.

In other words... you are allowed to kill murderers and non-believers.

I seem to have done the wrong thing when I quoted this verse from the Qur'an. Well, I apologize and hopefully this will never happen again. I was looking trough some websites and found several different versions and translations of this verse, and I took the one which looked easiest to understand. Believe me, I would never try to deceive you or anything like that. Anyway here is the verse again and this time it is in full context.

Noble Qur'an 5:32. Whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.

Mishief in the lands = Non-believers? No, it means corrupting the lands, causing tumult. While Allah Almighty in Noble Verse 5:32 considers the killing of one innocent soul equivalent to killing all innocent people, He still considers tumult and oppression to be worse than murder itself! Imagine how bad Allah Almighty's punishment for tumult and oppression will be.

There is also a verse which speaks about killing innocent Muslims.

Noble Qur'an 4:93. If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of God are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him..

But don't think that this prohibition of killing innocents is restricted to Muslims only.

Abdullah ibn `Amr (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Whoever killed a mu`ahid (a non-Muslim having a treaty with the Muslims, or a non-Muslim citizen) shall not smell the (fragrant) smell of Paradise though it can be smelled from a distance of forty years (of traveling)." (Al-Bukhari).

[__Kratos__]

*breaks out koran*

5:33 - It is but a just recompense for those who make war on God and His apostle and endeavour to spread corruption on earth, that they being slain in great numbers, or have, in result of their perverseness their hands and feet cut off in great numbers, or are being entirely banished from the face of the earth: such is their ignominy in this world. But in the life to come yet more awesome suffering awaits them.

Footnote 43- The term "apostle" is evidenctly generic in this context. By "making war on God and His apostle" is meant a hostile opposition, and will disregard of, the ethical precepts ordained by God and explain by all His apostles, combined with the conscious endeavour to destroy or undermine other people's belief in God as well.

*typos are mine, it's hard as hell to balance this massive book in my lap and type around it.

[Repoman]

What do you mean with this? When did any Muslim kill a Christian because the Christian published a video of an Imam giving a lecture? What are you talking about?

All I said is that it would be stupid IF christians did that. You don't need to go out of your way to read things into my posts.

If you are a Christian, then I want to tell you this:

Since I'm not a Christian and favor the elegance of short-circuit boolean evaluation I didn't need to read whatever it was you may have posted there.

True Muslims huh? So there are true Muslims and un-true (fake?) Muslims? Every Muslim would be angry if he or she saw what the cartoons contained.

My point exactly! Thank you. I have muslim friends at work that laughed their asses off at that funny, funny cartoon that showed the angry brigand with a bomb in his hat. Since he wasn't angry, he must not be a true muslim.

Read this Hadith:

Look, after you got busted posting out of context clips that tried to fool us into believing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the quote really meant, do you really think citing more scripture (or whatever you call the muslim holy texts) is going to help your argument?

If you don't know a lot about our religion, then ask, instead of going into attack-mode the moment you post here!

You see, this is the problem! Whenever a filthy dog infidel posts a truth about islam that muslims know will damage the religion in the eyes of the other nasty infidels, you claim we are attacking the religion!

OK, I misquoted it a little bit, so come here and torture me! Don't be stupid... I just wanted to show you the main principles, but I see that some of you actually research for themselves. Well done, Ships-cat, for finding the true translation of the verse, but as you can see it does not make much difference. I have no time to explain this further, but tomorrow I will make this point clearer.

"misquoted it a little bit" Right. Took a snippet that just happened to be the exact opposite of what the verse actually meant.

Listen, I am sure that no infidel would have a problem with islam at all if it wasn't the stated goal of islam to conquer the entire world.

You say mohammit didn't rape little girls. Fine.

I call a 40 year old man that marries and then defiles young children a rapist.

If you don't then you must think it is OK.

If you think it is OK then you probably look at 6 year old little girls a little differently than the rest of us here.

If you don't look at tiny children as possible sexual partners then maybe you have morals against such an abomination.

If you have morals against such an abomination then how can you defend mohimmed?

Edited April 5, 2008 by Repoman

[Repoman]

But your logic makes no sense. By your logic there is no way that muslims could act to appease you.

Had religious leaders ordered muslims to be provoked by the video you would have taken it as evidence of their culture's primitiveness and proneness to violence.

Now that they did not, you have taken is as evidence of them trying to hide their culture's primitiveness.

On the surface, you make a good case for me being close-minded and incapable of impartially reevaluating my position when faced with new information.

But what if my belief as to the motives for the immam's call for calm is true? Did you open-mindedly consider that? We see in this thread over and over again that speaking a truth about the religion that makes the religion look bad is called an "attack". Have you also asked yourself why the clergy of the "religion of peace" would even NEED to ask their flock not to blow up more innocent civilians in response to a videotape?

And your comments about a mohammed being a child rapist etc. are just silly and unnecessary.

I used the following reasoning:

• I call a 40 year old man that marries and then defiles young children a rapist.
• If you don't then you must think it is OK.
• If you think it is OK then you probably look at 6 year old little girls a little differently than the rest of us here.
• If you don't look at tiny children as possible sexual partners then maybe you have morals against such an abomination.
• If you have morals against such an abomination then how can you say that bringing to light this unsavory facet of islam is silly and unnecessary?

Since when is speaking the truth about a religion attacking it? It is all in the koran.

The part I bolded was also incoherent to me. I'm not aware of any event where muslims have done what you seem to imply. In other words: I'm not aware of muslims all over the world killing Christians just because a Christian journalist published a video showing Christian leaders reading out passages from the Koran.

If you'd like to read it again, you'd notice that I only said it would be stupid if xstians did such a thing. Do you disagree with this? If so, I am sorry, but I stick to my opinion that it would be stupid. Also note how I never said muslims all over the world did such a thing. Edited April 5, 2008 by Repoman

[KingTomis]

Who was the Dutch filmmaker murdered for his film by a muslim?

[__Kratos__]

Who was the Dutch filmmaker murdered for his film by a muslim?

Theo van Gogh

[Dusty Digital]

On the surface, you make a good case for me being close-minded and incapable of impartially reevaluating my position when faced with new information.

But what if my belief as to the motives for the immam's call for calm is true? Did you open-mindedly consider that? We see in this thread over and over again that speaking a truth about the religion that makes the religion look bad is called an "attack". Have you also asked yourself why the clergy of the "religion of peace" would even NEED to ask their flock not to blow up more innocent civilians in response to a videotape?

Fair point. Such a thing is possible. I didn't comment on the actual validity of your opinion, simply on the fuzziness of your logic. You keep going to unnecessarily lengths with you descriptions, when mulsim clergy told their flock not to be provoked I doubt they meant "don't blow up more innocent civilians because of this", frankly because its a very tiny minority of muslims who would do such a thing, and those b******* probably don't listen much to "mainstream" muslim leaders. (So far it seems like no-one has blown up innocent civilians due to a videotape) I find it quite easy to understand why muslims would be provoked - even muslims who believe freedom of speech is sacred are pretty likely to feel insulted by this film. Hence I find it quite logical that muslim leaders would ask their flock not to be provoked, not because provocation would show their inherent tendencies to violence, but because they are humans just like the rest of us, and might get angry when someone is saying negative things about their religion.

I used the following reasoning:

• I call a 40 year old man that marries and then defiles young children a rapist.
• If you don't then you must think it is OK.
• If you think it is OK then you probably look at 6 year old little girls a little differently than the rest of us here.
• If you don't look at tiny children as possible sexual partners then maybe you have morals against such an abomination.
• If you have morals against such an abomination then how can you say that bringing to light this unsavory facet of islam is silly and unnecessary?

I find it silly and unnecessary because I fail to see how someone lived their sex life some 1500 years ago is pertinent to today's problems. I could start citing the Christians church's misgivings on the subject but I won't, since I don't think those are particularly relevant to the evaluation of Christianity today. Also: it's pretty problematic to judge events that far back in history by today's moral standards. By your definition most men in ancient Greece were paedophiles, and hence we should be rid of remnants of greek civilisation.

Since when is speaking the truth about a religion attacking it? It is all in the koran.

If you'd like to read it again, you'd notice that I only said it would be stupid if xstians did such a thing. Do you disagree with this? If so, I am sorry, but I stick to my opinion that it would be stupid. Also note how I never said muslims all over the world did such a thing.

Oh ok, so basically I misunderstood your sentence. I thought you meant that Muslims had been doing something like that, when in fact you merely made a completely pointless and irrelevant observation that it would be stupid if Christians started killing Muslims for something that hasn't happened. Sorry for misunderstanding

[ships-cat]

A-Fighter (interesting name), you write thoughtful posts, and thank you for your responses. However, I believe they highlight a chasm between the approach to religion in "the West", and that in some of the "Islamic" nations. (I put these terms in inverted commas because they represent a simplification, but one that has broad applicability for the most part).

But first......

Before I reply to your 'comments', I just want to tell you something. You cannot just come to this discussion, post some rude and provocative things, and expect anyone to believe you. If you have read through the thread, then you might have noticed that it is (quite) peaceful here. We ask questions and we reply to each other. Do you really think that someone wants to reply to the nonsense you just posted? Do you?

Indeed. I hope we can keep this civilised people. It is possible to discuss something - to be provokative even - without being outright rude.

Now, A-fighter, you made the point that...

What do you mean with this? When did any Muslim kill a Christian because the Christian published a video of an Imam giving a lecture? What are you talking about? If you are a Christian, then I want to tell you this: You don't care if Jesus (Peace be upon him) is being portrayed in a very bad way, if people make fun of him etc. We Muslims have got more respect for him than Christians themselves have! And Prophet Mohammad is even more important to us, so how can some cartoonists (Who clearly need some art lessons ) make drawings of him? We are not like Christians, who have no problems with foolish cartoonists make fun of their God! No, nobody has the right to do such things.........

All of the christians that I know consider their religion to be a personal thing; a living covenant between God and themselves, with Jesus as both prophet and - I dunno.. a sort of intermediary I guess ? If someone produces a film, book, or lecture criticising or ridiculing Chritianity or Christ, then they would disaprove. They may even organise to protest about it, though this is rare. However, they will not seek to outrigh BAN such a thing, for three reasons;

• [1] They are secure in their faith, and know that it cannot be harmed by such secular activities as a book or a film.

[2] They do not seek to impose their beliefs on another person or persons; either directly, or by cencorship.

[3] They accept Jesus's instruction that faith is a spiritual issue, and should not be used to interfere in worldly politics ("Give unto Rome that which is Rome's") other than by setting a personal example.

Islam, on the other hand, is a profoundly political creed, in that the Koran (and subservient Hadiths) give instruction and example on legislative, political, and military rules and methodologies. (Mohammed gives instruction, for example, on how to conquer cities; how to treat the resulting captives, and specific legislatory issues - ultimately giving rise to the Sharia.). Now, I have no idea wether individual Muslims feel insecure in their faith. But taken en-masse, many groups of them behave as though they do: hence the restrictions on mocking Mohammed or Allah. (or even making pictorial representations of them).

Now, you raise an interesting point about members of this board not understanding Islam; however, once more, you do so from the perspective of your own faith. As you said....

What can I tell you people that will make you wake up and notice for the first time that you are the ones that are mistaken, and you are the ones who are deceived! Listen to what I tell you for I have more knowledge about these things. For example, if you want to know more about a football team (Let's say Manchester United), are you going to ask the manager of that club or are you going to ask a doctor? Yes, you can ask both of them, but the manager will know much more of course. So please pay attention to what I am telling you and you might learn something new.

Well, to extend your metaphor: if I really wanted to know about Manchester Unitied's performance as a football team, I would certaily not ask the manager. The manager is biased, and has a personal interest in the team. Any answer he/she gave would be based on his/her belief and faith in the abilities of the team, rather than the actuall results that they achieve. In addition, the manager would naturaly want to downplay any failures... or mis-behavior by the team... in order to give a better public image. The Doctor , on the other hand, may know less about the internal politics or mechanics of the team, but is in a far better position to give an unbiased opinion; he or she is entirely capable of reading the football league tables, and also reading stories in the newspaper (or on TV) of where the players have been fined by the FA for misbehaviour or fouling; or indeed... arrested/convicted for drunken brawling etc.

Actually A-Fighter, you chose rather a good metaphor there

Now, to continue with 5:32...

Noble Qur'an 5:32. Whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.

Mishief in the lands = Non-believers? No, it means corrupting the lands, causing tumult. While Allah Almighty in Noble Verse 5:32 considers the killing of one innocent soul equivalent to killing all innocent people, He still considers tumult and oppression to be worse than murder itself! Imagine how bad Allah Almighty's punishment for tumult and oppression will be.

Ahh... but there we have the "smoking gun" A-fighter. What constitutes tumult and oppression ? Consider the example of the UK; we have a large number of Muslim communities (broadly speaking, they seem to prefer to clump together rather than integrating into our society as a whole). These communities are starting to demand changes to the British law in order to accomodate Sharia. When this is denied, they cry "oppression".

So the path is: A muslim arrives in the land; demands changes in the law and customs of the land; is denied these; claims oppression; is now authorised (under 5:32) to kill the non-believers in their own land; takes over the land; goes to the NEXT land. This is how Mohammed conquered Mecca and - subsequently - the Middle East. Ask the Spanish or the Indians how they feel about the early spread of Islam.

And the one that I am particularly interested in....

Abdullah ibn `Amr (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Whoever killed a mu`ahid (a non-Muslim having a treaty with the Muslims, or a non-Muslim citizen) shall not smell the (fragrant) smell of Paradise though it can be smelled from a distance of forty years (of traveling)." (Al-Bukhari).

This also sounds very well and good... untill you realise that the "treaty" mentioned above is actually "Dhimmi".

A-Figher... would you like to tell this forum what Dhimmi is ?

Meow Purr.

Edited April 5, 2008 by ships-cat

[prisha]

So the path is: A muslim arrives in the land; demands changes in the law and customs of the land; is denied these; claims oppression; is now authorised (under 5:32) to kill the non-believers in their own land; takes over the land; goes to the NEXT land. This is how Mohammed conquered Mecca and - subsequently - the Middle East. Ask the Spanish or the Indians how they feel about the early spread of Islam.

meow-purr i love the purr and your style

this is exactly what happened in india. islam came first in the form of arab traders, liked what they saw (country is rich, folks are peaceful and have lost quite a bit of aggression as there is reniassance with hindu religion is happenning due to buddhism and jainism), became invaders sent trash like ghori's, ghazni's and occupied. then started the torture of realm, ruled india till brits came. when brits left wanted a seperate country and established pakistan as a theocracy and now cries everyday that india is not treating its 130 million muslim population. (we had 30 million during partition and they now grew to 130 million). though they lived in india they wanted to create little pakistans everywhere it went on till 90's but now it looks like some of them are realizing it is better to go with rest of india and reap the benefits of growing economy. muslims did not want to recognize india but india wants to recognize them and want them to be a part of it.

The previous President of India, APJ Abdul Kalam, two more before him, and numerous other politicians are Muslims, as are numerous sports and film celebrities within India.

i have lived in a area which suffered communal violences till 90's. it was so scared just to walk the streets. now we see a change in the attitude but we have to wait and see

[~JuSt*A*MaN~]

A-Fighter (interesting name), you write thoughtful posts, and thank you for your responses. However, I believe they highlight a chasm between the approach to religion in "the West", and that in some of the "Islamic" nations. (I put these terms in inverted commas because they represent a simplification, but one that has broad applicability for the most part).

My posts highlight a difference between people like you and people like me? Is that what you are trying to say? I don't understand what you mean with this. I have to admit, you are using many words which are hard for me to understand, because English is not my first language. Please explain to me what you mean .

Islam, on the other hand, is a profoundly political creed, in that the Koran (and subservient Hadiths) give instruction and example on legislative, political, and military rules and methodologies. (Mohammed gives instruction, for example, on how to conquer cities; how to treat the resulting captives, and specific legislatory issues - ultimately giving rise to the Sharia.). Now, I have no idea wether individual Muslims feel insecure in their faith. But taken en-masse, many groups of them behave as though they do: hence the restrictions on mocking Mohammed or Allah. (or even making pictorial representations of them).

Again, you are using words which I don't come across every day, and this will make it much harder for me to comment... Let me reply to something which I did understand and hopefully it will make everything clear. You said that we Muslims "on the other hand" don't feel secure about our faith, and that is the main reason why we don't want anyone to make cartoons about our Prophet (Peace be upon him). You are completely mistaken here, for how can a cartoon convince us that a whole religion is false?! What can this miserable drawing do to us to lose our faith in Allah Almighty? NOTHING... The real reason why we disapprove of pictures depicting our Prophet (Peace be upon him) is because we do it out of respect. Have you noticed that every time I mention our Prophet Mohammad's name (Peace be upon him) I always say 'Peace be upon him'? Some people even say 'Peace and Blessings of Allah Almighty be upon him'. In short, we are are strong in faith, and no picture (or lie) can change that!

Well, to extend your metaphor: if I really wanted to know about Manchester Unitied's performance as a football team, I would certaily not ask the manager. The manager is biased, and has a personal interest in the team. Any answer he/she gave would be based on his/her belief and faith in the abilities of the team, rather than the actuall results that they achieve. In addition, the manager would naturaly want to downplay any failures... or mis-behavior by the team... in order to give a better public image. The Doctor , on the other hand, may know less about the internal politics or mechanics of the team, but is in a far better position to give an unbiased opinion; he or she is entirely capable of reading the football league tables, and also reading stories in the newspaper (or on TV) of where the players have been fined by the FA for misbehaviour or fouling; or indeed... arrested/convicted for drunken brawling etc.

Actually A-Fighter, you chose rather a good metaphor there

Performance? Who wants to know about their performance? I was just giving a simple example, and you put it under the microscope! What I was trying to say is that you have to go to a person who has a lot of knowledge about certain things. Be honest, if I am a practicing Muslim, then surely I must know more about Islam than people like 'Repoman'? (I am not showing off in any way, for that is a major sin in Islam). No? So if anyone wants to convert to Islam, you go to Repoman because he has more knowledge than me ! Have I made my point clear now? It is not important for you to go into detail when I say something (like that), because I just wanted to give an example. Seriously now, why should I keep secrets about Islam? (As in the manager not telling the truth about his players and matches etc.) This is a wonderful religion, and that is why I come to this forum every day. I am not here to spread lies, deceive people or anything like that, but I am here to spread the truth. I love my religion and I love all of you, so I want to share Islam with you!

For example, if a young person asks his dad if he can jump out of the window, will his dad say 'I love you so much, I will let you do anything!' (Even jumping from the window). No of course not, he will say 'I love you, and that is why I will stop you from doing these kind of things!' Similarly, I want to warn you, and show you the truth before it's too late. If this religion was all about killing innocent people and raping children etc. then I would have chosen another religion a long time ago, but NO, this is the most peaceful religion in the world! Doesn't this last sentence make you think? Put this one under the microscope! There is no point in trying to find errors in my posts (Instead of trying to see it from the bright side), because I am a human being, and we are all designed to make mistakes! (In a way).

Ahh... but there we have the "smoking gun" A-fighter. What constitutes tumult and oppression ? Consider the example of the UK; we have a large number of Muslim communities (broadly speaking, they seem to prefer to clump together rather than integrating into our society as a whole). These communities are starting to demand changes to the British law in order to accomodate Sharia. When this is denied, they cry "oppression". So the path is: A muslim arrives in the land; demands changes in the law and customs of the land; is denied these; claims oppression; is now authorised (under 5:32) to kill the non-believers in their own land; takes over the land; goes to the NEXT land. This is how Mohammed conquered Mecca and - subsequently - the Middle East. Ask the Spanish or the Indians how they feel about the early spread of Islam.

I am sorry to say this, but I don't see any logic in your comments. Tumult and oppression has got nothing to do with the examples you gave. When did Muslims go public and asked for Shariah Law to be introduced in a country like the US or France or even Germany? Remember when that Archbishop in the UK said something? The whole country was angry at the Muslims! (Witnessed this first-hand). Why? Because a Christian leader asked for (parts of) the Muslim Law to be introduced. So imagine what would have happened if an Imam would speak out! Well, certainly not what you claimed... (Kill the unbelievers (95% of the population), take over the land, then go to the next country).

And the one that I am particularly interested in.... This also sounds very well and good... untill you realise that the "treaty" mentioned above is actually "Dhimmi".

A-Figher... would you like to tell this forum what Dhimmi is ?

I will be honest, this is the first time that I have heard of this word. I did some research on the Internet and found only ONE website which I could trust, and that was Wikipedia. The rest were Anti-Islamic, and I did not bother to read them thoroughly, simply because I saw several mistakes on the first few websites. Anyway, I think that Dhimmi means a treaty between the Muslims and non-Muslims. Have you got a better meaning for it?

[~JuSt*A*MaN~]

An animation? Didn't the last people that made a drawing of Muhammad almost get murdered along with their families?

This sentence shows me that you have done no research yourself about this animation movie, have you? If you go to Google and type in 'Muhammad: The last Prophet', then one of the first websites will be Wikipedia. Here is a section from that website: 'As in The Message, an earlier live-action movie, Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is not depicted . So whenever he is spoken to, or is in a scene, the character speaking to him faces the camera.'

Well if islam was truely real and truely was the work of allah, you'd think that allah could have made his own words more convincing since he is supposely all knowing and all powerful? Plus you know allah could just reveal to everybody the message of the koran rather then just let a war leader of the time spout off about it. Just a few flaws in that line of thought.

I thank you for asking me this question. Did you know that before the Glorious Qur'an was revealed, the people in Arabia were excellent poets? These men would spend their whole life writing their own poems and then hold competitions to see who could recite the best. When the Qur'an was revealed, these activities simply stopped... And do you know why? Because these people had never heard something as beautiful as the Qur'an! They knew they could not create something as good as this (in terms of rhyming and using VERY specific words). Allah has promised that Quran has been made easy to understand.

Noble Qur'an 54:17. And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?

And regarding "you know Allah could just reveal to everybody the message of the Koran rather then..." Now, we have come to the basics of this discussion. In Islam, this life is simply a TEST. If we pass the test, we will go to Paradise, if we fail the test, we will go to Hell. Simply, isn't it? I want you (and everyone else please) to read the following story about the purpose of life (according to the Qur'an).

A Clever King

There was a country long time ago where the people would change kings every year. The person who would become the king had to agree to a contract that he will be sent to an island after his 1 year of being a king. So, one king finished his term and it was time for him to go to the island and live there. The people dressed him up in expensive clothes and put him on an elephant and took him around the cities to say goodbye to all the people. This was the moment of sadness for all the kings who ruled for one year. After saying goodbye, the people took the king with a boat to the remote island and left him there. On their way back, they discovered a ship that had sunk just recently. They saw a young man who survived by holding on to a floating piece of wood. As they needed a new king, they picked up the young man and took him to their country. They requested him to be king for a year. First he refused but later he agreed to be the king. People told him about all the rules and regulations and that how he will be sent to an island after one year.

After three days of being king, he asked the ministers if they could show him the island where all the other kings were sent. They agreed and took him to the island. The island was covered with thick jungles and sound of vicious animals were heard coming out of them. The king went a little bit inside to see how it was and discovered the dead bodies of all the past kings. He understood that as soon as they were left in the island, the animals came and killed them. The king then went back to the country and requested the people to provide him with 100 strong workers. He was provided with 100 workers and he took them to the island and told them to remove all the deadly animals and to cut down all the trees. He would visit the island every month to see how the work is progressing. In the first month, all the animals were removed and many trees were cut down. In the second month, the whole island was cleaned out. The king then told the workers to plant gardens in various parts of the island. He also took some useful animals like chickens, ducks, birds, goats, cows etc. In the third month, he ordered the workers to build big houses and docking stations for ships. Over the months, the island turned into a beautiful place. The young king would wear simple clothes and spend very little from his earnings. He sent all the earnings to the island for storage. Nine months have passed like this.

3 months passed and now it was a full year. The people dressed up the young king and put him on an elephant to take him around the country to say goodbye to others. However, this king is unusually happy to leave the kingdom. People asked him, “All the other kings would cry at this moment and why are you laughing?” He replied, “Don't you know what the wise people say? They say that when you came to this world as a baby, you were crying and everyone was smiling. Live such a life that when you are dieing, you will be smiling and everyone around you will be crying. I have lived that life. While all the other kings were lost into the luxuries of the kingdom, I always thought about the future and planned for it. I turned the deadly island into a beautiful abode for me where I can stay peacefully.”

We should take a lesson from this story about how we should also live our life. The life of this world is to prepare for the life hereafter. In this life, we shouldn't get lost into the beautiful things of this world and forget about what is to come in the afterlife. Rather, even if we are kings, we should live a simple life like our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and save all our enjoyments for the hereafter. May Allah make it easy for us all.

[__Kratos__]

This sentence shows me that you have done no research yourself about this animation movie, have you? If you go to Google and type in 'Muhammad: The last Prophet', then one of the first websites will be Wikipedia. Here is a section from that website: 'As in The Message, an earlier live-action movie, Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is not depicted . So whenever he is spoken to, or is in a scene, the character speaking to him faces the camera.'

Well I haven't seen it, if that's what you're asking.

I thank you for asking me this question. Did you know that before the Glorious Qur'an was revealed, the people in Arabia were excellent poets? These men would spend their whole life writing their own poems and then hold competitions to see who could recite the best. When the Qur'an was revealed, these activities simply stopped... And do you know why? Because these people had never heard something as beautiful as the Qur'an! They knew they could not create something as good as this (in terms of rhyming and using VERY specific words). Allah has promised that Quran has been made easy to understand.

Noble Qur'an 54:17. And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?

Maybe then, but the koran was meant to be timeless in it's meaning... Wife beating, killing infidels, oppressing thought and freedom, have the founder (muhammad) being a child rapist, a rapist in general, a terrorist, war leader with a sadistic side... You'd think allah would have taken the future into consideration since he's supposely suppose to be all knowing and all powerful... Hence, today the koran can't even convince me it's a decent book let alone the true religion.

And regarding "you know Allah could just reveal to everybody the message of the Koran rather then..." Now, we have come to the basics of this discussion. In Islam, this life is simply a TEST. If we pass the test, we will go to Paradise, if we fail the test, we will go to Hell. Simply, isn't it? I want you (and everyone else please) to read the following story about the purpose of life (according to the Qur'an).

And I've got the message and I still don't agree with it. If the recited words of an all knowing and all powerful god doesn't convince me to become a muslim, that god just failed. Thus meaning that god cannot be all knowing, all powerful and of course a god.

A Clever King

There was a country long time ago where the people would change kings every year. The person who would become the king had to agree to a contract that he will be sent to an island after his 1 year of being a king. So, one king finished his term and it was time for him to go to the island and live there. The people dressed him up in expensive clothes and put him on an elephant and took him around the cities to say goodbye to all the people. This was the moment of sadness for all the kings who ruled for one year. After saying goodbye, the people took the king with a boat to the remote island and left him there. On their way back, they discovered a ship that had sunk just recently. They saw a young man who survived by holding on to a floating piece of wood. As they needed a new king, they picked up the young man and took him to their country. They requested him to be king for a year. First he refused but later he agreed to be the king. People told him about all the rules and regulations and that how he will be sent to an island after one year.

After three days of being king, he asked the ministers if they could show him the island where all the other kings were sent. They agreed and took him to the island. The island was covered with thick jungles and sound of vicious animals were heard coming out of them. The king went a little bit inside to see how it was and discovered the dead bodies of all the past kings. He understood that as soon as they were left in the island, the animals came and killed them. The king then went back to the country and requested the people to provide him with 100 strong workers. He was provided with 100 workers and he took them to the island and told them to remove all the deadly animals and to cut down all the trees. He would visit the island every month to see how the work is progressing. In the first month, all the animals were removed and many trees were cut down. In the second month, the whole island was cleaned out. The king then told the workers to plant gardens in various parts of the island. He also took some useful animals like chickens, ducks, birds, goats, cows etc. In the third month, he ordered the workers to build big houses and docking stations for ships. Over the months, the island turned into a beautiful place. The young king would wear simple clothes and spend very little from his earnings. He sent all the earnings to the island for storage. Nine months have passed like this.

3 months passed and now it was a full year. The people dressed up the young king and put him on an elephant to take him around the country to say goodbye to others. However, this king is unusually happy to leave the kingdom. People asked him, “All the other kings would cry at this moment and why are you laughing?” He replied, “Don't you know what the wise people say? They say that when you came to this world as a baby, you were crying and everyone was smiling. Live such a life that when you are dieing, you will be smiling and everyone around you will be crying. I have lived that life. While all the other kings were lost into the luxuries of the kingdom, I always thought about the future and planned for it. I turned the deadly island into a beautiful abode for me where I can stay peacefully.”

We should take a lesson from this story about how we should also live our life. The life of this world is to prepare for the life hereafter. In this life, we shouldn't get lost into the beautiful things of this world and forget about what is to come in the afterlife. Rather, even if we are kings, we should live a simple life like our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and save all our enjoyments for the hereafter. May Allah make it easy for us all.

I live life for what is today. As an atheist I see life as ultimately meaningless. But to each of us, every minute could be our last so we should enjoy it and do something to better ourselves.

One of my top 10 favorite movie quotes - "I'll tell you a secret. Something they don't teach you in your temple. The Gods envy us. They envy us because we're mortal, because any moment might be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we're doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again." -Achilles

I have no desire to serve a backwards ideology that only encourages hatred, violence and oppression when I can rule myself.

[Bill Hill]

We should take a lesson from this story about how we should also live our life. The life of this world is to prepare for the life hereafter. In this life, we shouldn't get lost into the beautiful things of this world and forget about what is to come in the afterlife. Rather, even if we are kings, we should live a simple life like our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and save all our enjoyments for the hereafter. May Allah make it easy for us all.[/font]

How many times do I have to tell ya, you don't have to wait to die

You can have it all, anytime you want it

Yeah, the kingdom's all inside.

[Repoman]

Indeed. I hope we can keep this civilised people. It is possible to discuss something - to be provokative even - without being outright rude.

Indeed! Thank you. I was going to post that but you beat me to it. Thank you for raising such an important point. I agree 100%.

May I paraphrase? If the truth you speak might make somebody in some dark corner of the world look at themselves and their behaviour and beliefs in a new light then please shut up because we want smooth sailing and not deep introspection.

Thanks!

[Repoman]

Did you know that before the Glorious Qur'an was revealed, the people in Arabia were excellent poets? These men would spend their whole life writing their own poems and then hold competitions to see who could recite the best. When the Qur'an was revealed, these activities simply stopped... And do you know why? Because these people had never heard something as beautiful as the Qur'an!

Do you seriously expect ANYONE here to believe that an entire civilization instantly lost all interest in the arts just because a murdering warlord that raped children and sent war parties out to slaughter anyone that didn't submit to his will came to town????

Do you even believe what you are writing????

You do remember from the koran that mohimmed slaughtered a butt-load of people - right? Why did he do it? Because they didn't submit to him. So why would those same people suddenly quit writing poetry?

Do you actually believe it is because they suddenly loved the words coming from the barbarian that just slaughtered half of the people in the city?

Or maybe is it because the brutal murdering rapist enforced the same sort of slavery that the taliban did in afghanistan and forbade anyone from music, poetry or any of the other arts that make humanity special.

Give me a break.

If you are writing what you truly believe then I know the world is heading for a major conflict and I feel sorry for the "innocent" muslims that will be vaporized. But I hope you are just kidding around when trying to say with a straight face that the middle east civilization voluntarily stopped participation in the human arts after being brutally subjugated by mihammots murderous horde.

===================

New US foreign policy: NO NATION BUILDING!

If terrorists attack us or our allies then the USA should determine which nation-state supported those terrorists and bomb that country for 90 days. And then nothing more.

It's simple - we get it! You people can't handle freedom. We overthrow Saddam - you loot your own nation and start killing each other.

Palestine gets elections and they vote in terrorist hamas who, of course, immediately starts killing other palestinians.

We will never waste another american life trying to help nations of that culture gain freedom.

We will simply bomb you for 90 days any time some loser piece of #$$@() terrorist idiot injures an American citizen or one of our allies.

You kill 10 Israelis, we trace the funds to the terror cell back to Iran and we bomb Iran for 90 days. No invasion, no "nation building" (because we have finally learned they simply can't handle freedom).

You kill an American in Bangkok, we trace the funding back to Syria and we bomb Damascus for 90 days.

Eventually, even people insane enough to believe that a prophet that murdered his own countrymen and raped children is someone worth following will realize that it is not in their best interest to mess with us.

Oh - and while we are at it, why don't you guys quit using the internet? After all - it is the evil USA that created it.

Television? SORRY - WESTERN nations.

And quit drinking cola too.

And wearing tennis shoes.

And driving cars.

It must really hurt to hate a civilization but still humiliate yourself enough to use all of the inventions that your enemy has created. I would feel like a dirty piece of garbage if I had to do that.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Repoman

[Siara]

I don't see why muslims are angry about this movie. All it does is show verses from the koran and then shows video of muslims carrying out the words in the koran.

If they really have problems with the film why don't they go after the violent wack jobs who are dragging their religion's reputation through the mud? If they spoke out against those wackos maybe the rest of the world wouldn't assume the violence comes from the Koran.

[Talon]

New US foreign policy: NO NATION BUILDING!

If terrorists attack us or our allies then the USA should determine which nation-state supported those terrorists and bomb that country for 90 days. And then nothing more.

It's simple - we get it! You people can't handle freedom. We overthrow Saddam - you loot your own nation and start killing each other.

Palestine gets elections and they vote in terrorist hamas who, of course, immediately starts killing other palestinians.

We will never waste another american life trying to help nations of that culture gain freedom.

We will simply bomb you for 90 days any time some loser piece of #$$@() terrorist idiot injures an American citizen or one of our allies.

You kill 10 Israelis, we trace the funds to the terror cell back to Iran and we bomb Iran for 90 days. No invasion, no "nation building" (because we have finally learned they simply can't handle freedom).

You kill an American in Bangkok, we trace the funding back to Syria and we bomb Damascus for 90 days.

Eventually, even people insane enough to believe that a prophet that murdered his own countrymen and raped children is someone worth following will realize that it is not in their best interest to mess with us.

Oh - and while we are at it, why don't you guys quit using the internet? After all - it is the evil USA that created it.

Television? SORRY - WESTERN nations.

And quit drinking cola too.

And wearing tennis shoes.

And driving cars.

It must really hurt to hate a civilization but still humiliate yourself enough to use all of the inventions that your enemy has created. I would feel like a dirty piece of garbage if I had to do that.

I'd vote for that

[Bill Hill]

Oh - and while we are at it, why don't you guys quit using the internet? After all - it is the evil USA that created it.

Television? SORRY - WESTERN nations.

I've made that very same point many times... the irony never ceases to amaze me.

"This infidel tech is...A-OK brilliant.."

[Mekorig]

[ironic mode]The USA bomb b******* for 90 days.....90 days later, an old soviet nuclear bomb explode in New Yor/Los Angeles/Washinton/Etc...bravo![/ironic mode]

By Nimoy´s sake, the things i have to read in this board.....

[ships-cat]

[ironic mode]The USA bomb b******* for 90 days.....90 days later, an old soviet nuclear bomb explode in New Yor/Los Angeles/Washinton/Etc...bravo![/ironic mode]

By Nimoy´s sake, the things i have to read in this board.....

Indeed Mekorig.

Or perhaps... "The US bombed the neighbours of the Worlds major oil exporters for 90 days... and then discovered that they had run out of fuel for their bombers.... "

Meow Purr.

[Dusty Digital]

Those who hate islamic civilization must feel like dirty pieces of garbage anytime they use anything that utilizes algebra.

[Incorrigible1]

Those who hate islamic civilization must feel like dirty pieces of garbage anytime they use anything that utilizes algebra.

These days, whatever islamic genius that developed algebra would be stoned within a fortnight for blasphemy.

[ships-cat]

Those who hate islamic civilization must feel like dirty pieces of garbage anytime they use anything that utilizes algebra.

Why would I feel soiled utilizing a system that developed from Persian, Indian (specificly Hindu) and Greek sources, developed by Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī , a Persian ?

Meow Purr

[BlueZone]

These days, whatever islamic genius that developed algebra would be stoned within a fortnight for blasphemy.

Good point. How's the contribution to international science since the rise of fundamentalism?

[__Kratos__]

What I don't get is that anything remotely of value coming out of the middle east is called an "islamic invention" instead of an arab one or from a country. Like for example... I'm drinking Turkish coffee right now, not Islamic coffee. So their products can be labeled by country but in casual talk it's all islamic? Insane. Fyi, this cofee is fantastic.

That's like calling the CERN a christian invention center because it's based in Europe.