Swedish artist facing death threat from Al Qaeda names new dog … Muhammed
posted at 10:25 am on October 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Not the sanest man in the world, but possibly one of the bravest. An English translation of his latest blog post, courtesy of reader “Winston Churchill” and cleaned up a bit by yours truly:
The logic and composition is crystal clear. The foundation for the whole roundaboutdog project was the exhibition in Tallerud which had the name The Dog in the Art. [Background here. -- ed.] Well, now is the time to introduce a new member of staff.
The artist Vilks has gotten himself a specially trained guard dog, the dog Muhammed, watching each and every movement 24 hours a day.
When you first get to know Muhammad she sure is likeable, yes, it is a she, but the genus perspective is just a mark. For those who do not know Muhammed, getting close should only be done after taking a lot of precaution.
She seems like every other dog with a bone on its favorite carpet. But nothing is as it appears.
Follow the link. She doesn’t look too fierce, but then neither does he. Exit question: What’s liable to antagonize his persecutors more, the fact that he’s named the dog Muhammed or the fact that he’s named a female dog Muhammed?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I don’t think this man is funny at all. I have two very close friends who are Indonesian Muslims and this type of behavior is a slap in their face and their faith.
GogglesPisano on October 18, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Hehe…the bitch’s name is Muhammad. PERFECT.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 10:27 AM
The guy does know what buttons do mash down and sit on, I will definitely give him that.
Exit answer: all of the above, like these barbarians need an excuse for their thuggery.
bbz123 on October 18, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Either Islam sucks or it doesn’t. When you decide that, you’ll know whether calling the dog Mo is wrong or not.
JiangxiDad on October 18, 2007 at 10:30 AM
The size of boulders, I tell ya.
ReubenJCogburn on October 18, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Islam does suck as long as its book tells you to kill nonbelievers.
So my hopes to this guy for as long a life as he can get. He’s gutsy, and he’s taking the kind of attitude that more should adopt.
NO FEAR.
MadisonConservative on October 18, 2007 at 10:33 AM
I don’t admire the dude any more than I admire the guy who did Piss Christ, or the Double Dong Dildo Last Supper. He may be brave, but he also is rather clearly a jerk who revels in antagonizing people for no real reason other than to gain attention for himself.
RW Wacko on October 18, 2007 at 10:36 AM
I guess the same way Muslims behead Jewish journalists… or secularists think that pis*ing on a portrait of the Virgin Mary is “art,” or a chocolate Jesus…
pullingmyhairout on October 18, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Awesome.
Leonidas Hoplite on October 18, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Them threatening to kill you for your expression isn’t a real reason?
MadisonConservative on October 18, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Why drag the dog into this nonsense??? Now some idiot will take it out on the dog, and probably not even get in trouble for it.
If this guy really wants to make a statement, how about doing it respectfully. It’s not as if I for one, would really give a rats hienie about someone chopping his head off after seeing his “Jesus the pedophile” depiction.
You want my respect? You want my support?
Then have some respect and dignity for others first.
And leave the dog out of it.
KMC1 on October 18, 2007 at 10:43 AM
He may be a couple items short of a Happy Meal, but does know how to bust balls.
JammieWearingFool on October 18, 2007 at 10:43 AM
The command in the koran to kill unbelievers refers to specific unbelievers who took offensive action against muslims first. I can easily cherrypick the Bible to find damning quotes like that.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Meh. He’s not brave. If he really wanted to be brave, bold and brazen, he’d name the dog ‘Jesus.’
Then he’d be a true artist!
Hoodlumman on October 18, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Taxpayer funded art and private citizen published cartoons are not the same thing. Piss Christ was controversial because it was being funded with tax dollars. Having your life threatened because of your views or ideology is a bit different. Sure, this guy is an antagonist, but so what? It’s wihtin his rights to name his dog whatever he pleases or criticize Islam as he sees fit.
robblefarian on October 18, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Who did this, Ann Coulter?
pb5000 on October 18, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Cute dog, though.
amerpundit on October 18, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Well, welcome to the club, now you know how Christians feel when their God is mocked, but do they go out and kill someone for it???
4shoes on October 18, 2007 at 10:52 AM
You took the words out of my keyboard!
4shoes on October 18, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Hmmm…. I got $10 to help buy him a pet PotBelly Pig… could name him Allah…
SALUTE!
Romeo13 on October 18, 2007 at 10:54 AM
LOL took the idea right away from me…
A male companion for Ms.Mohammad, Mr.Zion
Limerick on October 18, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Yes, this a bad thing to do. Bad to the dog, that is.
Bigfoot on October 18, 2007 at 10:56 AM
So Muhammed can’t lick ‘his’ balls?
/southpark
andycanuck on October 18, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Because every muslim on the planet is a psychopath who goes on a killing rampage when their prophet is mocked.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 10:59 AM
That’s not true at all…the Koran is a general statement to non-believers, while the Bible contains historical quotes of wrath. I suggest you spend more time at jihadwatch, dude.
Miss_Anthrope on October 18, 2007 at 10:59 AM
I meant to say the Koran is full of general statements of wrath toward non-believers.
Miss_Anthrope on October 18, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Because only Islam has standing orders to do so…why else have there been over 9,000 jihadist attacks since 9/11?
Miss_Anthrope on October 18, 2007 at 11:01 AM
When “peaceful” Muslims rise up and unequivocally – no buts or ifs – denounce the bloodthirsty jihad against Israel, America, and infidels in general, then they will deserve not being provoked like this. Until then, bring it on.
Halley on October 18, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Here’s my drawing of Muhammed: ☻ I think he’s gay.
Zetterson on October 18, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Ah, finally! A relativist weenie here to defend the death cult and their nutjob text. What took you so long?
As for naming the dog Mohammed, it’s brilliant. These twisted nitwits will want to kill the dog first, but then a creeping doubt will cause them to wonder if killing a dog named Mohammed will insult Allah.
It’s a good question — does killing a dog named Mohammed get me cast into a Lake of Fire?
Jaibones on October 18, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Please, he drew the cartoon before he was threatened for his “expression”. He’s reveling in the attention, dude. I don’t feel sorry for the “aggrieved” Muslims; hell they need to lighten up, ok? I’m just saying the guy is a jerk for starting it at all, just like the Piss Christ and Dildo Last Supper folks. People should have the decency to leave religous figures and symbols alone. I don’t like the guy, period. He does have some boulder, though, yes.
RW Wacko on October 18, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Both contain historical quotes of wrath. And I don’t need to spend more time at jihadwatch, some of the bogus stuff Spencer says can easily be turned against Christianity.
Like what? Would these count as a general statement of wrath towards non-believers:
Luke 12:46
The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers (Hell, to be more specific)
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:13 AM
I’m not a relativist and I have to defend the “death cult” for two reasons:
1) The retarded criticism can be used against my own religion.
2) Said criticism is BS.
Can I expect a real argument from you or are you just gonna stick to cheap insults?
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Weak, Apologist. It says “condemned” but does not instruct the followers to kill. The condemnation comes from God, not from the followers. And when was the last time that Christian rose up and killed non-believers…several HUNDRED years ago. Can’t say that about Muslims…they do it daily.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Cherrypick this:
4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
8.12: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
22.19: These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads.
22.20: With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skins as well.
22.21: And for them are whips of iron.
22.22: Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning.
Go to hell and take your 72 virgins with you. -thanks to Jason Mattera
MadisonConservative on October 18, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Darth, you’re not going to get anywhere here apologizing for Islam. All of know there are good muslims in the world, and among us. But don’t try to feed the bs that it’s text does not instruct it’s followers to convert or destroy. You CANNOT say that about modern Christianity. And that IS the crux of the difference. There is no MODERN Islam, yet.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:20 AM
So Moses was a devout muslim? The penalty for blasphemy in Judaism is the same as in Islam. Except modern day Jews are mostly weenies and the dangerous ones don’t have the political power to reinforce OT law.
Leviticus 24
10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them.
13 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: ‘If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.
17 ” ‘If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. 22 You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.’ ”
23 Then Moses spoke to the Israelites, and they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him. The Israelites did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:21 AM
sigh… all three of those Bible quotes are about GOD condeming nonbelievers to hell… they do NOT tell Christians to take matters into their own hands…
Now, there are Bible verses that do so… but they are Old Testament much more so than new… and since in Christianity the New Testament overides the Old… your argument is not valid.
Problem with the Koran is that it gets MORE militant as it goes…
No, not all moslems are terrorists, but the VAST majority of Terorists are Moslem.. and use THAT as the reason for being Terrorists.
Until Islam has a reformation, we’ve got problems.
Romeo13 on October 18, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Again, Apologist…that is ancient history. Let’s talk about now. Who uses their holy book to torture and kill non-believers NOW.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:23 AM
It does instruct to convert or destroy, but it’s in specific (and I’d say somewhat reasonable) circumstances. I do not believe there is a blanket statement to convert or destroy everybody. In fact, I think that the problem with fundamentalist Islam is the same problem a lot of people here have: they read the koran with a hatchet.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Then you aren’t reading anything other than what you naively want to.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Once again, Darth…look at NOW, not history. Who is using their religion to justify killing now?
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Your logic is faulty. Just because I can use something to justify murder doesn’t mean it was used properly, or it’s that object’s fault.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:27 AM
I agree with you, I just fear we are beyond the point of no return (on both sides, but obviously especially on the fundamentalist Muslim interpretation side). The religion has been corrupted to such an extent, that I don’t think it can be reformed, at least not for many generations.
RW Wacko on October 18, 2007 at 11:30 AM
My post was in response to someone who claimed the Koran contained “general statements of wrath towards nonbelievers”. I pointed out the bible does too.
Irrelevant. The fact remains that our God is going to do a hell of a lot more to unbelievers than blow them up. For eternity. Furthermore, the OT is still part of our holy book and we are expected to justify it. Saying “well, we don’t do that anymore” isn’t good enough.
I don’t get all this reformation talk. The Christian reformation led to lots and lots more bloodshed, not less. It’s the secularization that cut Christianity’s will and power to kill.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:30 AM
I’m afraid yours is…
No one here is blaming the KORAN, so much as the muslims using it.
You’re the one saying that the Bible is just as militant. Don’t change your tack now. You’re equating Christianity and Christians to Islam and Muslims. They are not equal.
The only thing we have in common at this point in history is that we are both RELIGIONS. That is all. One uses it’s text to justify brutalizing and murdering non-believers, and the other hasn’t done that since the middle ages. There is difference of 630+ years of “evolution”.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:31 AM
This bloodshed and turmoil was the evolution of the religion, and led to the secularism you’re so keen to give credit to. If it weren’t for the bloodshed, which I must remind you came from people questioning the Bible and taking to individual thought and consideration, Christianity would still be where Islam is….
The reform is the key to the secularism.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:35 AM
If you don’t GET the reformation point. You need to spend more time studying the Dark Ages and the Enlightenment.
Our religion has had an evolution. Islam will too, God willing. There is 630+ years difference in the lifespan of the religions. Islam is on the cusp of it’s reformation…if we’re lucky.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:37 AM
The biggest point to be made by me here is this… These religions are NOT equal, no matter how much you want to believe it.
Christianity is an adult to the child of Islam. And that is not even a judgement call. It’s a simple statement of evolution of a belief system.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:39 AM
They are cherrypicked. The last set is about hell and not relevant to terrorism. The first two refer to specific people/battles. None of them are universal.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Too bad Catholicism and Protestantism aren’t the only branches of Christianity. Eastern Orthodox Christians never had a “reformation” and we’re not killing unbelievers either. The “reformation” BS is just a sad attempt by some protestants to take credit for something that would’ve happened anyway.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Cherry picked, or not. The point still remains, the two religions are not the same.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:42 AM
The scary part, though, is who is going to reform who? As Mark Steyn teaches us, the Muslims have the youth and the will. Oh oh.
Zetterson on October 18, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Bzzt. Wrong:
“Islam does suck as long as its book tells you to kill nonbelievers.” ~ MadisonConservative
I’m not changing anything. The Bible IS just as militant. I’m not equating the two RELIGIONS, however. I’m equating the two books. I know we don’t follow OT law. The point is we don’t have much of a leg to stand on when our God commanded much of the same things Allah commands to muslims.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:45 AM
I never said they are.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:45 AM
The “reformation” BS is just a sad attempt by some protestants to take credit for something that would’ve happened anyway.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Darth, that was an idiotic statement, given that I keep referring to the “evolution” of the religion. It WAS bound to happen, and I didn’t give CREDIT only to the followers. It was a natural part of the life span of the religion.
With that said, it still doesn’t change the fact that Islam has not reached the point in their evolution where they question the brutal aspects and turn more secular.
And as to Eastern Orthodox…that is CATHOLICISM, not Protestant. As far as Christianity is concerned, E.O. is still the Catholic Church. The Protestant portion of the faith took most of the power away from The Church, which includes E.O. So, the reformation DID in fact affect E.O. as much as it did the Roman Church. Nice Try.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Anyway, I have to go buy food. See y’all.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Don’t buy pork now. :)
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:49 AM
This is simply a myth perpetuated by our own President, the MSM and many others.
Please name the leader of this reformation movement.
Please point me to the names of 5 of the followers of said movement. Only 5, please.
faraway on October 18, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Darth,
Too many comments correcting you since my post to bother going back; sorry. You apparently don’t understand the Reformation at all, and your suggestion that a Reformation of the Death Cult’s theology could lead to greater bloodshed would seem to be the point.
Luther’s challenge to the Catholic Church was based on his belief that it was corrupt (it was). The evidence of this rampant corruption was manifest in some of the extreme efforts against Luther and his followers.
Any effort to reform the Death Cult would almost certainly result in a massive upheaval among the many millions of Islamist scum who believe that the Koran’s dictates to kill and behead and slaughter unbelievers are divine mandates.
As for your references to Gospel quotes which warn of “condemnation” by God, he’s God. And Christians live this life in anticipation of that one.
As tickledragon challenged — give me all the instances of Christians murdering and terrorizing based on Biblical mandates in the last 100 years, and I’ll give you a short list of mayhem by the Death Cult in the last 100 months…
Jaibones on October 18, 2007 at 11:51 AM
ditto
Jaibones on October 18, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Specific people/battles? Great…you go find me a link of a recent stoning of a non-Christian, while I go find the links of Muslims striking at the neck.
Guess who gets more results? Again, you are comparing two religions, one of which its followers are responsible for thousands of mass slayings in the last decade, and one of which hasn’t killed as many people in its name in a decade as the other did on one day in New York, six years ago.
MadisonConservative on October 18, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Which leads to conversations like:
Lars: “Vilks, you want to go get some ludfisk and beer?”
Vilks: “Sure, Lars – sounds great, just….GODDAMMIT!”
Lars: “Vilks, what’s wrong? What happened?”
Vilks: “DAMMIT! Muhammed just took a dump on my carpet!”
This should be considered an allegory for our times…
Timothy S. Carlson on October 18, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Sorry, but I have to answer this.
The EO church is not Catholic or Protestant. The EO and RC churches split long before any Protestants even existed. “Christianity” does not say the EO is still RC. In fact I’m willing to bet that even the overwhelming majority of Protestants who know what the EO is wouldn’t say something this stupid, and even if every Protestant thought that, the EO and RC still outnumber you 2.5-1. We have as much in common with the RC as the RC has with the Lutheran church. That is, some things are similar, others aren’t. We don’t believe in the Pope’s supreme authority. Our priests can marry. Etc.
Darth Executor on October 18, 2007 at 11:52 AM
This is simply a myth perpetuated by our own President, the MSM and many others.
Please name the leader of this reformation movement.
Please point me to the names of 5 of the followers of said movement. Only 5, please.
faraway on October 18, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Any Muslim questioning the state of things has the potential for that Leader position.
Look at Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She spent several years speaking on JUST this subject.
There are others, but I can’t remember names right this second. The awesome part about it is, a good few of them ARE women.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:55 AM
And it’s not a myth…it’s a natural part of the evolution of a belief system.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Hirsi Ali and the gay chick in Canada are 2. Cant think of many others. 2 people do not make a movement.
faraway on October 18, 2007 at 11:59 AM
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Wow…that was weird…I typed out an entire paragraph..and it disappeared.
If the EO has not changed and lost power, we would all be EO under the Byzantine Empire.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 12:00 PM
faraway…a movement can start with a single person. The religion will evolve.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Yea, looks like its evolved into a death cult for now.
faraway on October 18, 2007 at 12:02 PM
@:-o There’s my depiction of Mohammaed. I just created 5,288 more terrorists.
Scorched_Earth on October 18, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Nope..it’s BEEN a death cult.
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Faraway, I understand your negative attitude toward possible improvement in the religion. I’m sure there were folks in the Middle Ages that were equally downcast.
But Islam will evolve or it will die out. That’s just the nature of all living things. (And belief systems are just as much living things as people.)
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 12:08 PM
All…I’ve GOT to move on from this thread. Enjoyed the debate.
On to the next thread! ;)
tickleddragon on October 18, 2007 at 12:10 PM
I hate to disagree with you Tickleddragon, but I’m Orthodox, NOT Catholic. They are not the same. Orthodoxy has remained unchanged and has apostolic succession. Because of a series of events, the Roman Catholic church broke away from Orthodoxy. Of course, if you ask a Catholic, they’ll disagree with me. The Roman Catholic church is not in communion with the Orthodox church, not the other way around.
We have major disagreements with the Nicean Creed, among other things.
Since I’m in no mood to argue religion today, I’ll leave it at that.
pullingmyhairout on October 18, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Hi, fellow Orthodox person!!
pullingmyhairout on October 18, 2007 at 12:13 PM
The EO Church is suggested to big “C” Catholics as far as sacraments and liturgy if there is no suitable RC church around.
Of course, Der Popenfuehrer has stirred the pot and called the EO “wounded” rather than a “defect” like the Protestant churches. The EO and Protestants do not believe that the Pope is infallible, as the Pope does.
Hening on October 18, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Darth, I don’t post here very often.
I suspect the one thing that strikes me about some of your posts, is the impetus is upon those exercising their freedoms, regardless of how someone or group might interpret this, less they should fear reprisal.
Aware of 1054, and other history of religious divisions, nonetheless, the majority of adherents to Judaism, Christianity, and numerous other faiths have lived willingly with a separation of Church and State, and opposing groups for the most part have had a sustainable tolerance notwithstanding.
The idea of somehow we better think about having things in our free press reconsidered, for fear of offending (fear of irrational response more likely) is absurd. If those who follow Islam peacefully are offended by someone naming a god Mohamed, they should reassess this anger, and truly seek to reform from within.
Anger over this, but no rioting when fellow Islamism does truly the most barbaric acts to one another, let alone the kuffar, has no foundation whatsoever.
formercorpsman on October 18, 2007 at 12:21 PM
A female dog named Muhammad?
Hot doggity! He surely found a creative way to pick a bone with the Islamists.
AlexB on October 18, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Darth Executor, is there a quote within the New Testament where Christ instructs believers to kill non-believers?
Or perhaps you can point out a quote from Christ that directly contradicts His command to do all things in love; to love your God with all you heart, soul and mind; to love your neighbor as yourself. Maybe you can show me a verse where he says I’m to carry a grudge and hate my neighbor. I’d love to be able to use that sometime.
Did He say somewhere that we’re suppose to slay those that trespass against us?
If you can’t find a quote from Christ, how about Paul, or James? Or maybe it was John who told Christians they’re to kill non-believers?
I’m having a hard time finding anything in the New Testament that encourages me to cut of the heads of non-believers. In fact, the general gist of the Gospels seems to be focused on love, forgiveness, hope, and salvation.
I’m confused. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.
As a note though, please don’t provided examples of what people have done in the name of Christ. I know there have been some awful things done in His name. I just can’t seem to find where Christ would have encouraged or condoned those things. In fact, it seems to me, He’s most likely devastated and heart-broken that we could do such things to each other, let alone using Him to justify such atrocities.
Looking forward to your reply and continued deep insights into the similarities between the Quran and the New Testament.
Rod on October 18, 2007 at 12:37 PM
The reformation had more to do with grace than with infallibility of the Pope.
Luther’s 95 thesis (petitions) were mostly about the corruption of the church selling indulgences. One of the Church’s fundamental belief was that with works you would be saved. Luther states that it is by God’s grace and only his grace that you are saved. Of course that meant a great loss of revenue, as well as power over the people.
I believe the Catholics, Mormons, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witness, and some other religious sects still believe that you can “work” your way into heaven. (Yeah, I know about the James quote, look at the context and who was being taught.)
right2bright on October 18, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Well, isn’t the practice of religion a reflection of what believers understand about the religion?
Think about that the next time you see thousands of Muslims completely bent over, asses high in the sky, for their five daily prayers.
It’s as if by their posture they are saying, “As Muhammed did to Aisha, shall Allah do to me”.
Islam: the religion of BO-HICA
-LAN ASTASLEM
Wanderlust on October 18, 2007 at 12:53 PM
This link is not in English for me. Hmph.
bridgetown on October 18, 2007 at 12:55 PM
I’m getting a dog and guess what I’m naming it.
Kini on October 18, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Cute little guy.
PRCalDude on October 18, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Guess it’s a girl.
PRCalDude on October 18, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Best name for a Bitch EVAH
pjf626 on October 18, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Kini, I hate to keep correcting you but you did mean a pot- belly- pig, right?
abinitioadinfinitum on October 18, 2007 at 1:24 PM
First of all this Darth schmuck doesn’t know his Torah from his anal opening. Why do so many progressives think they know the Hebrew Scriptures when they are so ignorant in reality.
Blasphemy the same as in Islam. Uh no, its not dumba$$. What is a dangerous Jew? No Jewish sect believes what you just wrote.
I guess, once again, I have to explain the Torah to an errant ignoramus.
The context for this passage is the Israelites have just been freed from Pharoah and are in the “wilderness”. This blasphemer, who is not a full-blooded Israelite, just violated the law by cursing, DOING EVIL IN THE NAME OF G-D, and fighting with another Israelite. Was he stoned immediately? No. He was held by the WITNESSES, who apparently believed a sin had been committed, and turned over to Moses. So, was Moses supposed to put him in jail? You know, the many jails that the Israelites built through their desert trek? Um, no. So he was stoned to death. This showed how serious the violation was. Do we do that today? Now that the Jews are not wandering in the wilderness? Of course not. But its still a serious sin to do evil in the name if G-d. Now your hysteria about this little passage is ridiculous.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 18, 2007 at 1:29 PM
The approved solution to handling death threats is an expression of contempt for the source of the threat. Naming your bitch Mohammed fulfills that requirement with respect to Muslim threats that you conform to their religion, or else. It is far more provocative to Muslim fanatics to acquiesce to their threats, teaching the bad lesson that threats work. The negative consequences for their barbarian behavior must increase constantly until the Muslims give up their violence and supremacist demands.
Tantor on October 18, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Shhhhsh, The pig thinks it’s a dog. ;-)
Kini on October 18, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Some folks are taking offense to this brave-crazy guy naming his dog Muhammad as they comment on a blog where the main poster calls himself ‘Allahpundit.’ Too funny.
baldilocks on October 18, 2007 at 1:41 PM
ROFLMAO
abinitioadinfinitum on October 18, 2007 at 1:43 PM
registration’s open at LGF
RushBaby on October 18, 2007 at 1:47 PM
My dog (pig) likes Snausages.
OT – nuthin like pushing the envelope and bringing tears of joy to Islamic Rage Boys eyes.
Kini on October 18, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »