The Wacky Mohammed Image Archive

Submitted by: CrakrJak 7 years ago in
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

It wasn"t always illegal to draw Mohammed, now forget about it.
There are 92 comments:
Female 173
i was disappointed...i thought the images would actually be "wacky" :(
0
Reply
Male 1,610
[quote] your conflicts arose when individuals and communities wanted native american resources.[/quote]

I believe I said something to that same effect. When violence erupted, it wasn`t at the instigation of ecclesiastical men, but colonials. My original argument was that in the colonial US, natives were not forced to convert. I don`t know what you`re arguing with me about anymore.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
[quote]My problem is you`re still equating North America colonization with US colonization. North America is a *continent* and includes Mexico and Central America. There is no central american continent.[/quote]

So you`re arguing with me for not making a proper distinction in the beginning? Next time I`ll do so. I assure you I don`t equate the US with North America. Ok?

[quote]At least not in direct competition. Maryland wasn`t actively converting and they were the only catholics in the area til after the US was formed.[/quote]

Yes, they were competing with Catholicism, and on a global scale, not just in the colonies. I`m referring here to the Spanish and Portuguese colonization of the central America and South America. So the Catholics in Maryland weren`t making a real effort, I neglected that information because it is insignificant in respect to the Catholic conversions south of what is now the US.
0
Reply
Female 937
The links below this article are disturbing.
0
Reply
Male 51
itkonlyyou65
hgjghjfgh

should be banned for spam
0
Reply
Male 606
Mohammed is asian?
0
Reply
Male 2,893
I don`t really care.
You can get a tattoo of Muhammad on yer ass for all i care.
0
Reply
Male 9,305
"Yea Crakr thats why i just type whatever, because i know theyll just change it"

We try to liven things up a bit.
0
Reply
Male 1,231
The stuff about hell is not dissimilar to Catholicism, and all the symbolism is basically the same as most other main stream religions; its just that Muslims take their faith very very seriously, and some very very literally, which an be a dangerous thing to do where religion is concerned imho.
0
Reply
Male 446
Oh no! They will have to fly planes into the internets now! South Park should have cut out these images to represent the holy one, problem solved.
0
Reply
Male 191
I-A-B... You should be ashamed!
0
Reply
Male 91
The fact people are arguing about the wording of a title of a topic about Mohammed is very saddening. It just proves that the panic terrorism and Islamic extremists bring means we have to debate the most banal, minor, insignificant things for fear we might piss off a Muslim or two.

If a Muslim you know is offended by this, tell him to grow a pair. Or show him the episodes of South Park that say all Priests are paedophiles.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
[quote]...and has then pretended the Grand Mufti is the founder of every Islamic group ever..[/quote]

I`ve pretended nothing of the sort. I never said he founded every radical Islamic sect. I said that he started the antisemitic genocide ball rolling and it`s grown ever since then. Hitler started the Nazis, But he didn`t found the KKK or the Skinheads. Hitler did however provide them the symbols they now rally around.

That`s the basis for my linking him to today`s problems in the middle-east and it`s a valid linkage.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
Hmm...I wonder if a Fatwah for Jihad has been called upon I-A-B?
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Two more things.

1) Seems most people actually contributed something reasonable without my intervention...

2) To prevent massive repetition, Crakr and I already had a discussion on the role of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

I am suggesting that someone has found a Muslim with a link to Nazis, and has then pretended the Grand Mufti is the founder of every Islamic group ever, and that his rhetoric is what guides everything ever.

I think Crakr has read this, and believes it. I think if it was about Christians, he would realize how silly the argument was.

Seriously, there`s more argument for Henry Ford being the inspiration for WWI and WWII than the GMJ being the inspiration of Modern Islamic thought.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Wow, Baal. Thanks for that link... I had no idea what a Fatwa actually is before now. I`ve always heard it fed to me by the media as a bogey-man evil thing that I should be scared of (and yes, as a kid, I was always afraid of the apocryphal bogey-man), without ever being shown what the bogey-man looks like.

Meant sincerely, without jest.
0
Reply
Male 8,300
> CrakrJak
> Don`t assume anything in the title or comment came from the submitter

True that. If you saw some of the titles and descriptions as we receive them, you`d understand why. But adding `wacky` to this one - yeah, I can`t see what the point of that was.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Step 1) Pretend any drawings of Mohammed are illegal always according to all Muslims. (Not counting some of the most senior Islamic authorities such as Ali Sistani).
Step 2) Show old pictures of Mohammed.
Step 3) Claim there has been a massive change.

There hasn`t. The way the current events have been painted are inaccurate, and thus do not gel particularly well with Islamic thought of any period. It was specifically the content of the cartoons, not that there were cartoons.

What an actual Fatwa looks like by the way, with regard the Danish cartoons.
0
Reply
Male 294
[quote]It sounds like you`re not talking about missionaries or religious figures anymore, but just Christians in general.[/quote]

Maybe that`s my fault. What I`m really trying to get at is the differences in colonial approach.

The US colonies were founded by colonists, who wanted new starts and new lives away from their governing bodies. Therefore, your conflicts arose when individuals and communities wanted native american resources.

The French weren`t really interested in colonization, that`s why you only really trading forts out there. A couple cours de bois, a couple trading posts, the french never really bothered.

The Spanish were there for military occupation first and foremost. There weren`t people flocking there for a new life, they were military or there to support the military. Sure, occasionally you`d have a noble that wasn`t going to get an inheritance too. That`s basically why the land was divided up into huge ranchos the way it was
0
Reply
Male 1,404
Yea and people wonder why the rest of the galaxy doesn`t want to associate with us.
0
Reply
Male 294
[quote]I corrected myself in regards to the colonization of central America and Mexico. I mistakenly addressed Gerry1of1 instead of you while doing this. [/quote]

No. My problem is you`re still equating North America colonization with US colonization. North America is a *continent* and includes Mexico and Central America. There is no central american continent.

[quote]The missionaries in the US and Canada were competing with the Catholics to convert natives.[/quote]

Not really. At least not in direct competition. Maryland wasn`t actively converting and they were the only catholics in the area til after the US was formed.

You also neglect that L.S. directly mentions that Anglican missionaries weren`t successful. You can see that in two lights, first, that Anglican "missionaries" really weren`t trying they just basically took the money, and second, that natives in the area really weren`t listening.
0
Reply
Male 2,748
sooo, is muhammed fair game now? :D
0
Reply
Male 2,422
The only good muslim is an Abbasid muslim.
0
Reply
Male 2,591
awwwww shiiixts.... better get my jihad helmet on they`re bout to bomb my house as i type this
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Brassbull: I don`t know if it was forced or not, But my great-grandfather was adopted by a white protestant family, Which is why my name isn`t `Running Elk` or something similar. He faced some minor racism, But because it was mostly a rural community it didn`t persist. Becoming one of the best blacksmiths and tinkers/mechanics in the county didn`t hurt either. He was born in the era of horse and buggy, Lived to see man walk on the moon. I`m still in awe of what he lived through and seen. He shod horses, He worked on some of the earliest cars, His son was in Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941, His grandson survived Vietnam and He became a Shriner as well. Quite an awesome life for an adopted indian boy.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
@Crakrjak

I`m not in any way saying anyone is indirectly responsible. I agree it is BS to blame anyone today for anything that happened that long ago. I was contesting Gerry1of1`s claim that natives were converted to Christianity by force. This is true of Spanish and Portuguese Catholics, but not protestant Christians in the colonial US.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Brassbull: Arguing over what happened 100-150 years ago in America is pointless. no one living today is responsible for the acts of their ancestors.

I`m not responsible, Because one of my ancestors may have killed Gen. Custer (I`m 1/8th Lakota Sioux). So justly I can`t blame descendants of those responsible for the trail of tears. It`s history, We`ve learned from it and both become better for the lesson.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
[quote]the american west that was settled by Spain[/quote]

When I refer to the colonization of the North American west I mean the expansion under the doctrine of manifest destiny and the military campaigns which forced native Americans off of their own land and onto reservations. If you want you can read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

[quote]Their disputes were more along the lines of what would make an individual rich (land) and that tended to fall under politics.[/quote]

It sounds like you`re not talking about missionaries or religious figures anymore, but just Christians in general.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]By the way, extremism only seems prominent in Islam because that`s what the media decide to show us all the time.[/quote]

Things such as the rioting and the conditions in countries ruled by Islam are on a large enough scale to make it clear that it isn`t a handful of extremists being misrepresented as more.

If it really was just a handful of nutjobs, their ravings would be treated no more serious than that of, for example, Fred Phelps.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
@janus_james:

[quote]dude, north america does not equal united states of america[/quote]

I corrected myself in regards to the colonization of central America and Mexico. I mistakenly addressed Gerry1of1 instead of you while doing this.

[quote]For what became the US, they were a hodgepodge of religions that had left Europe because of persecution and most of them didn`t have the conversion need the Catholics did.[/quote]

Wrong. The missionaries in the US and Canada were competing with the Catholics to convert natives. Many denominations of Protestant Christianity appealed to the Church of England for resources to further the effort to convert natives because of the growing threat of Catholicism. If you want you can read The Poor Indians by Laura Stevens for more info about this.

0
Reply
Male 17,511
jondegi: It`s a much bigger group than just 2-10 people, It`s also true that not all muslims are nuts over the drawings.

This site just illustrates that drawing Mohamed wasn`t always viewed as sacrilegious, In fact the drawings were revered and considered holy in and of themselves. It`s a good way to illustrate the hypocrisy over the current events in the news.
0
Reply
Male 294
@brassbull

dude, north america does not equal united states of america

Mexico, central america, the american west that was settled by Spain, are all part of north america and were all colonized by christians and the missionaries were almost always backed up by a sizable military force.

You can`t make the above argument for the US or Canada. That`s because for Canada, France really didn`t utilize the land, they put a couple of forts and trading posts around and called it a day. For what became the US, they were a hodgepodge of religions that had left Europe because of persecution and most of them didn`t have the conversion need the Catholics did. They weren`t as interested in conversion as much as they were making their communities and being successful. Their disputes were more along the lines of what would make an individual rich (land) and that tended to fall under politics.
0
Reply
Male 1,011
Yea Crakr thats why i just type whatever, because i know theyll just change it
0
Reply
Male 10,440
...don`t know if anyone has brought this up yet, but there is a "draw mohammed day" on May 20th - in protest to the muslim attacks. It`s even got a facebook group.
0
Reply
Female 188
I`m tired of everyone thinking that every Muslim lost their shiz over the south park debacle, when it really was only one extremist fringe group consisting of 2-10 people.

By the way, extremism only seems prominent in Islam because that`s what the media decide to show us all the time.

Please go here if you`re interested. It explains a lot. :)
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Btw, For the record, The word `Wacky` was added to the title I submitted.

I`ve recently had to learn that you can`t trust that neither the title nor the comment underneath are directly attributable to the submitter of the post.

So, Everyone, Don`t assume anything in the title or comment came from the submitter. Fancy and the Mods can change anything in the submission to suit them.
0
Reply
Male 8,300
I didn`t click on the link. No point taking chances :-)
0
Reply
Male 294
@kitka yeah, that`s pretty much what I said. I think they meant well.
0
Reply
Male 3,755
Looks like what Jesus probably really looked like.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: Islam turned `Extreme` before WW2, The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem made it so. You can blame Western Europeans for suppression of native peoples, But it was the Grand Mufti that invented genocide.

"Remember, Abbady, this was and will remain an Arab land. We do not mind you natives of the country, but those alien invaders, the Zionists, will be massacred to the last man. We want no progress, no prosperity. Nothing but the sword will decide the fate of this country." - The Grand Mufti, 1920

Had his extremism been cut off then, Perhaps things would be different today. But instead the Italians then Hitler`s Germany funded him, Trained an army for his use, And armed them to the teeth. Since then, There has been no reasoning with `Palestinians`, Wahhabists, The Bath party, The Turks, or Most other Middle-eastern Muslim sects over Israel.

Until The antisemitism ceases in the Muslim religion there will be no peace there, In the middle-east.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Just a bunch of gringos not getting the way an ancient culture (way more ancient than them) see the world
0
Reply
Female 1,427
"I`ll put a Jihad on you!"

Correct term is "fatwa"

lololol
0
Reply
Female 119
why does his horse have a lady`s head?
0
Reply
Male 167
If I`m not mistaken, the South Park episode called "Super Best Friends" showed muhammed with no big fanfare. Why censor it now?
0
Reply
Male 1,610
[quote]Most came with a sizable military presence[/quote]

Not in North America. Business interests like the London Company often employed military men to lead charters in the colonies to protect their interests. As the amount of settlers grew, so did the need for a military presence. Missionaries were not affiliated with the military, even if they worked in places with a strong military presence.

[quote]but they kept the practice up for several hundred years, sorry that`s not ignorance.[/quote]

No, it was never a "practice" to infect natives. It happened intentionally once and that was a military action. The spread of disease amongst the native Americans happened very rapidly, not over several hundred years. By the time they were aware of it the damage was done. Further expansion then was a military campaign and was followed by the missionaries who were only trying to save as many natives as possible.
0
Reply
Male 85
@janus_games iv actully just done like five minutes of study on the jesuits (wikipidiea) and discover that in most cases they were the only thing standing between in slavment by the spanish and portugise. they wernt great but much better than the impiralists
0
Reply
Male 294
[quote]jesuits (catholic extreamists)[/quote]

Wha!?!? No. Really, go ahead and pull out the old radical `Extreme Jesuit Oath` which has been debunked several times.

The Jesuits were actually one of the few catholic orders that generally followed common sense at the time. They were the best educated, and they had provisions in place meant to keep them from abusing power.

Understand that their papal suppression was likely due to protecting the native populations from the Spanish and Portuguese. Reference Ruiz de Montoya I think.

Granted, they were still pox bringers, but I can say they meant well most of the time in the new world and backed it up.
0
Reply
Male 294
@brassbull Sorry there buddy. It is true. Some initial missionaries came to America with a very peaceful approach. Most came with a sizable military presence, and their behavior was so horrific that quite a few lost their lives as soon as the armed forces left. You say it was only through ignorance that they killed and infected thousands, but they kept the practice up for several hundred years, sorry that`s not ignorance. It`s not ignorance when you notice your natives getting sick everywhere you go and you keep going places.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]What is this abortion of text?[/quote]

Something about putting make-up on the eyelashes of people in south America. Weird stuff. Maybe they thought it blocked the alien mind-altering rays (they didn`t have tinfoil back then).
0
Reply
Male 322
"Im prity sure the jesuits (catholic extreamists) mascared tribes pepole in south america to save there soles or somthing silly like that, i know there is somthing about it in volitares candid (good read if any one gets a chance) a preety misgueded fing to do but thats misonrys for you all religons have some extream sect even budits"

Umm, what? I`m still trying to figure out if its English before I call out a 13-17 year old saying `I`m pretty sure its the Jesuits`.
0
Reply
Male 447
"That is not true! Most initial missionaries came to America with a very peaceful approach to converting natives."
Im prity sure the jesuits (catholic extreamists) mascared tribes pepole in south america to save there soles or somthing silly like that, i know there is somthing about it in volitares candid (good read if any one gets a chance) a preety misgueded fing to do but thats misonrys for you all religons have some extream sect even budits

What is this abortion of text?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]As a non-practicing muslim, I found this quite interesting. Islam has really gone backwards. During the pophet`s time women prayed in the same room as men and there was way more tolerance about other religions and generally everything then there is now. I blame it on the Mongols. [/quote]

Apart from the Islamic crusades to force people to convert to Islam. Kind of a big thing for you (or anyone) to overlook.

Islam under Mohammed might well have been less power-hungry and savage, but that ended with his death.

Medieval Islam had become a lot more tolerant and much less violent, sexist and generally bigoted, but war with Christianity encouraged fanaticism on both sides (no surprises there). But both sides became more moderate later.

Islam has only been as extreme as it now is from the mid 20th century, following the rather odd embracing of Wahhabism (which was pretty much ignored during its founder`s life).
0
Reply
Male 25,416
arrrgggghhhh! i didnt see. i didnt see!
0
Reply
Male 1,240
From our very own Sister site, #4.

That entire article is worth a read, but the jist of my point is that this fundamentalism that`s spreading, started not so long ago.

0
Reply
Male 1,610
@kitka_1994

I`d not heard about that, but Africa is not the new world. The Jesuits who arrived in North America were much more self-abasing and extremely passive in their method of conversion.

Gerry1of1:

Actually you`re dead on when it came to the Spanish arriving in Central and South America. They did force the natives to convert and went to great lengths to destroy all the religious material they could find. This was not the case in North America though. It was generally a situation where they came, they infected, and then they occupied the land after the damage was done. The christian method of conversion wasn`t to use force, but to scare them into believing their immortal souls were in jeopardy of eternal damnation.
0
Reply
Female 1,435
Nope thats not him. He was kinda rectangle looking and was a solid black color with some kinda writing written down the front of his clothing, I think the words were Islamic but It might has said Censord. I`m not quite sure, but I`m pretty sure thats what I last saw
0
Reply
Male 877
is anyone gettin Déjà vu here?
0
Reply
Male 171
As a non-practicing muslim, I found this quite interesting. Islam has really gone backwards. During the pophet`s time women prayed in the same room as men and there was way more tolerance about other religions and generally everything then there is now. I blame it on the Mongols.
0
Reply
Male 85
"That is not true! Most initial missionaries came to America with a very peaceful approach to converting natives."
Im prity sure the jesuits (catholic extreamists) mascared tribes pepole in south america to save there soles or somthing silly like that, i know there is somthing about it in volitares candid (good read if any one gets a chance) a preety misgueded fing to do but thats misonrys for you all religons have some extream sect even budits
0
Reply
Male 2,796
I`ll put a Jihad on you!
0
Reply
Male 1,610
[quote]Exactly how did the christians convert the native people in the new world? by FORCE that`s how. Islam is no more violent than the christian faith.[/quote]

That is not true! Most initial missionaries came to America with a very peaceful approach to converting natives. A lot of them put themselves at serious risk and dreamed of being martyred in their pursuits. It was only through their ignorance about epidemia that they infected thousands. Later, due to cultural conflicts, christians persecuted natives but they had abandoned any notions on converting them.

There was only once recorded instance where disease was weaponized to kill natives (disease infested blankets were distributed) and that was a military initiative. In fact, pretty much all aggressive take-overs of land were political or military, not religious.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
[quote]what did ragemonster say? i wanna know. someone tell me in a pg way.[/quote]

It`s like a puzzle. We know there is a mythological figure involved, and an insulting word/term that would not be censored. Also said mythological figure was in a South Park episode. My curiosity is piqued!
0
Reply
Male 40,221
Molehouse says [edited] "I`m just saying that as a Christian "..... " it just appears to be more prominent in Islam"

Exactly how did the christians convert the native people in the new world? by FORCE that`s how. Islam is no more violent than the christian faith.

Religions bite. All of them.
0
Reply
Male 351
inb4fancyladkilledbymuslumextremists
0
Reply
Male 85
I just sure black blocks with censord writen on it.
0
Reply
Male 2,332
That was a bit tame IAB..I was expecting at least one muhammed with a wooden leg and a laser beam attached to his head riding a unicycle made out of chickennuggets.
0
Reply
Male 302
I`m just saying that as a Christian I believe some weird stuff too, I don`t send death threats to people for not conforming to my way of thinking. There are people from all religions who do that sort of thing, but it just appears to be more prominent in Islam
0
Reply
Male 5,314
what did ragemonster say? i wanna know. someone tell me in a pg way.
0
Reply
Male 2,034
"They should stop trying to enforce their belief on others."

They can`t help it, they`re just so used to it. Back when Islam was founded, that`s how they spread their religion, through military conquest. And Christians get crap for the crusades...

Muslim Conquests on Wikipedia
0
Reply
Male 5,314
what was the point of that?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
RAGEMONSTER, please don`t use that word here. Just cause it`s not filtered, doesn`t mean it`s acceptable.
0
Reply
Male 477
RAGEMONSTER. Please don`t insult my proud and noble people by including this mythological figure as one of us.

Or did you mean the South Park definition? LOL
0
Reply
Female 517
@RAGEMONSTER
now that just being a jerk >_>
0
Reply
Male 76
If ultimately the human race winds up killing itself the odds are best that it will be an angry Muslim behind the trigger.
0
Reply
Male 302
Technically Muslims shouldn`t do drawings of anything living, because t s recreating Allah`s work.

They should stop trying to enforce their belief on others.
0
Reply
Male 33
DO NOT DRAW A PICTURE OF ME!! yeah real loving Mohammed wanna be god. I am sick of this MY GOD IS BETTER THEN YOUR GOD crap.. I don`t really belive in a Christian god either so....
0
Reply
Male 698
ha
0
Reply
Male 2,619
There should be images of Mohammed strapping a bomb to his back and running into a McDonalds.

The child molesting, murderous bastard.

And before anyone starts yes Im ignorant. So bite me
0
Reply
Male 774
"Mohammed, along with Buraq and Gabriel, visit Hell, and see a demon punishing "shameless women" who had exposed their hair to strangers. For this crime of inciting lust in men, the women are strung up by their hair and burned for eternity. Persian, 15th century. "

Religion is weeeird...
0
Reply
Male 9,305
I`m pretty sure the reason they get so upset was that originally they didn`t want people worshiping the image of him and making him into an idol. Not 100% on that but after seeing what people have done to Jesus I can understand why they wouldn`t want their idea of Mohamed to go that route.

But for the record the paintings make him out to be quite classy. So if they keep that up, it`ll be fine.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
I`ll see your jihad, and raise you a thermonuclear weapon.
0
Reply
Male 1,399
I`m going to pitch a film:

Modern muslim terrorists use a time machine to go back in time and kill the people who painted mohammed hundreds of years ago...

It`s called "BACK TO THE FATWA"
0
Reply
Male 4,014
A Jihad on IAB!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
What are they gonna do jayme? e-bomb us?
0
Reply
Male 702
It isn`t illegal as site points out used to be done in islamic world as well. But RIP I-Am-Bored you will be getting some abuse for this i reckon.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
It`s illegal under shiria law, and for some reason here in America we have to appease everyone.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
It`s not "illegal" now. Corporations it turns out are spineless, chickenpoops.
0
Reply
Female 238
Be careful, I sense Revolution Muslim right around the corner.
0
Reply
Male 425
you`re right! It`s NOT illegal. ITS BLASPHEMOUS. HERESY, HERESY I SAY!
0
Reply
Male 196
A link to zombietime on i-am-bored? Consider me one happy potato!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
South Park keeps trying.

This time they almost got bombed.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Link: The Wacky Mohammed Image Archive [Rate Link] - It wasn`t always illegal to draw Mohammed, now forget about it.
0
Reply