I have a questions why do so many muslims name their children muhammad??

[Don Rizzle]

its just a name dawg, why can't a muslim or a non muslim cat call his son muhammad? i mean i really do not know the reason for this thread, don rizzle is a intelligent cat and he knows i got luv for cat(nuttin "homo", y'all know what i mean) but is this a thread just made to diss someones religion or ability in naming there son? i know you better than this rizzle my nizzle, lol

i know nuff cats whoz name is jesus....great name

pz

it was a genuine question and not intended to cause offense to anyone, i have never met a man called jesus but i've met a ton of muhammads' and it just got me wondering. I don't see anything wrong with bringing up this topic, there are a number of muslims on this board who I hoped could answer this for me.

[LyRiCaL_G]

^^^i feel you dawg

i do think though if a muslim cat is gon name there son muhammad after their prophet....messenger?.....u know, like jesus is to christians.....and not just as a name you like, i'm sure you gon make sure you bring that kid up right or try cuz dang, thats a burden on your son in terms of a name to live up to!

i know a few muhammad to now that i think of it still....like 3....they just normal good cats....i got love for everyone, haha

pz!

[AndrE16686]

My take on all those protests is that before the cartoon being published, Muslims fellt like they were/are purposely being targeted around the world by the media and the military, like 'bombing our bretheren overseas and arranging them in naked shit stained human pyramids, now they got the nerve to kick us while we are down and claim artistic liberty?' The cartoon understandably just pushed some people to the edge.

Muhammad was a man, so you can give a man that name.

So that we remember he was just a man, we should not characterise him. 

I'm not saying that Islam teaches that Muhammad is scared or should be treated as such, but anyone that denies the absolute fact that backwoods muslims believe him to be sacred (just like backwoods American nuts believe the flag and to an extent the president is sacred) is simply not being honest with themselves or not thinking it through, like the arab muslim world is immune to the mass stupidity that plagues the rest of the world.

Sure, some Muslims do treat the Prophet as sacred and inadvertably worship him and such ignorance can be seen across the social spectrum.

I think we can all agree that everybody is stupid in various ways.

In Australia inciting a group to violence is a crime of sedition. I still think the cartoon boardered on inciting violence considering the timing of its publishing and its context within current world events, for instance somebody burning the US flag at the site of ground zero would be stomped to death and a judge would probably consider that the burner was purposely inciting hatred.

[Shallow]

My take on all those protests is that before the cartoon being published, Muslims fellt like they were/are purposely being targeted around the world by the media and the military, like 'bombing our bretheren overseas and arranging them in naked shit stained human pyramids, now they got the nerve to kick us while we are down and claim artistic liberty?' The cartoon understandably just pushed some people to the edge.

Muhammad was a man, so you can give a man that name.

So that we remember he was just a man, we should not characterise him. 

I'm not saying that Islam teaches that Muhammad is scared or should be treated as such, but anyone that denies the absolute fact that backwoods muslims believe him to be sacred (just like backwoods American nuts believe the flag and to an extent the president is sacred) is simply not being honest with themselves or not thinking it through, like the arab muslim world is immune to the mass stupidity that plagues the rest of the world.

Sure, some Muslims do treat the Prophet as sacred and inadvertably worship him and such ignorance can be seen across the social spectrum.

I think we can all agree that everybody is stupid in various ways.

In Australia inciting a group to violence is a crime of sedition. I still think the cartoon boardered on inciting violence considering the timing of its publishing and its context within current world events, for instance somebody burning the US flag at the site of ground zero would be stomped to death and a judge would probably consider that the burner was purposely inciting hatred.

That's exactly what I said. I never said this type of stupidity was unique to the arab world.

As for the context of the cartoon. There was a greater evil at work that most people either ignore or cannot see. The muslim leaders that insinuated the reaction are agents of Satan. The knew the exact reaction they'd get and they chose to follow through with it anyway. Many of them were educated men, imams, community leaders. They chose to bring to light a cartoon that would incite riots, months afer it was actually published. They waited for the right time to unleash it. When a Christian reverend of pastor does something like that I call him a faithless heathen and an enemy of Christ because he preys on the weak hearts and minds of the masses to fulfill his agenda. How any Christian or Muslim can support men like that with in their own faith whn it is a disservice to the faith they are trying to protect is beyond me.

[AndrE16686]

The muslim leaders that insinuated the reaction are agents of Satan. The knew the exact reaction they'd get and they chose to follow through with it anyway. Many of them were educated men, imams, community leaders. [/quote]


^^^
well the dutch fuck who actually created the cartoon is a fuckwit too, journalists usually got a political science degree, I wouldn't just blame the angry muzzo leaders.

We all got a little anti-christ in urz.

[Shallow]

The muslim leaders that insinuated the reaction are agents of Satan. The knew the exact reaction they'd get and they chose to follow through with it anyway. Many of them were educated men, imams, community leaders.

^^^
well the dutch fuck who actually created the cartoon is a fuckwit too, journalists usually got a political science degree, I wouldn't just blame the angry muzzo leaders.

We all got a little anti-christ in urz.

[/quote]


There'sa difference. Cartoonists like that aren't righteous men, or suppsed to righteous men. When a man of faith, Christian or Muslim incites chaos it's worse. The cartoonists job is to create contraversey. An Imam or Pastor's job is preach and protect what is good. And starting riots is not good. Clearly we should expect more from the supposed good than we should from the supposed tricksters. For people that have seen the light and chosen to walk in the darkness is much worse than people that have never seen the light, and don't claimto see it.

[AndrE16686]

Good point. You'd expect to expect more, from the supposed good, but those expectations of goodness can be dangerous and decieving to yourself anyway, I place no expectations on anybody, everybody is a potential scumbag or angel ninja in my eyes. Jesus thought everybody capable of salvation, regardless of profession, from the High Priests collecting money at the temple door right to the dirty dirty dirty dirty whores working the streets.

[Shallow]

Good point. You'd expect to expect more, from the supposed good, but those expectations of goodness can be dangerous and decieving to yourself anyway, I place no expectations on anybody, everybody is a potential scumbag or angel ninja in my eyes. Jesus thought everybody capable of salvation, regardless of profession, from the High Priests collecting money at the temple door right to the dirty dirty dirty dirty whores working the streets.

Of course, I mean I don't look to pastors or imams for what is good. That can only come from God. I guess what I was trying to say is that people in general garner certain levels of respect or lack of respect based on the titles they place on themselves or choose to adopt. A school guidance counselor attempting to molest a young student is worse than a homeless crackhead doing the same. People put trust into people in certain positions and when they take advantage of that trust it can be devastating. If an 8 year old girl is raped by her principal everyone thinks "I can't believe that man was allowed to be in a school", if the same eight year old girl is raped in the middle of the night by an ex-con rapist in the bad part of town most people would wonder what kind of parents would let their daughter out to be exposed to that. It's like I don't care when Khalid Mohammed or Farakhan spew their hatred, because they have built their rep on that stuff. If Barack Obama said the same things they said it wouldn't fly with me, as in I wouldn't suggest anyone should vote for him, but I have no problem watching and admiring the charisma ad communication skills of Khalid, I just know he is possesed by demons and doing the devil's work.

The cartoonist and people like him are the ex-con, while imams and pastors are trusted members of the community. No one puts any trust in smut peddlers and thus they should be ignored, instead those imams that spread it months after it was published used it as a tool to convince the most trusting and naive that it was a government and public sponsored attack on Islam and their prohet. They abused that trust. Much like Al Aharpton and Jesse Jackson do here. Or those lunatic reverends in the white south did to help the Klan spread. It's disgusting and it goes against basic morality.

If the every day people banded together and banned these viruses from their community it would greatly change society.