Draw Mohammed Day

The Deadline is Nigh for Everyone to Draw Mohammed!

|

After being physically attacked during a lecture in Uppsala and having two "offended" critics attempt to burn his house to the ground, the artist Lars Vilks, the man behind the rondelhund drawing of Mohammed, has wisely gone into hiding. And you, dear reader, defender of free speech, opponent of millenarian religious cultists, have the opportunity to do the same. The deadline for Reason's Everyone Draw Mohammed Day, bequeathed to us by a Seattle artist who decided that we should stick up for free speech by drawing Al Gore, is tomorrow at noon. So stop being such a perfectionist and just send the damn thing to mmoynihan—AT—reason.com 

And for inspiration, here is the full, uncut video of Vilks being attacked for showing a film, produced by a very brave Iranian woman, of Mohammed as a gay man. At about five minutes into the clip, a shrieking man, speaking in accented Swedish, shows that while he might have learned the language of his new country, he still doesn't quite get the culture: He asks, incredulously, why the police "didn't stop the film."

NEXT: Home Midwifery Now Illegal in Big Apple

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Slightly more entertaining than your average Jerry Springer show. This seem like good fun for the bored, but not a reason to start a genocidal war.

    1. Agreed. I’ve seen worse violations of free speech by lefties at college campuses. And the courageous film, at least what we saw of it, seemed designed to piss off muslims and do basically nothing else. Not that this excuses shouting it down, but I hardly see this clip as evidence that Muslims can’t behave as part of a liberal democracy. Also worth noting that, with very few exceptions, the crowd just shouts, and doesn’t do anything to hurt the police or the other people in the audience. There’s even one Muslim guy making sure that the rest of the crowd respects the police because “they’re doing their jobs.” All in all no worse than what happens when a Republican gives a talk at Amherst. Let’s not start treating our neighbors like they can’t be trusted.

      1. apparently you did not see them attack the film maker so they did more than just shout.

        1. you also apparently missed the part where a cops head was slammed into the wall and he was punched in the face.

      2. Threatening to kill and arson is normal you say?

  2. Official enemies are easy targets for cheap shots, aren’t they, Moynihan, you losertarian fuck?

    1. Max, do you understand the origin of Everybody Draw Muhammad Day? There is a good reason this is being done.

      1. Max, people have died over this shit. It’s time to confront the issue, don’t you think?

        1. If I could draw I would enter…a picture of this big horned devil with two stringed puppets…one labled House of Saad the other Israel…the puppets would be shooting each other full of holes while the fearful audience “America Public” looks on and christian type church dudes pass around plates that the public is putting mony into and all the money is handed over fire fighter style to the Devil’s pockets.

          1. oh ya Forgot to put in a Mohamed is sucking Jesus’s johnson while Budda is doing him up the arse… but that is a side side room with Henry Kissnger paying to watch.

          2. Can I propose an experiment?

            1) create a large oversize poster of the drawing you just described above. Carry it over your head in the streets of NY, or Mongomery Alabama.

            2)Make an equivalent poster featuring Muhammad, a 9 year old girl, and some derogatory political propaganda. Carry it around in Cairo, Egypt.

            Make sure you do #1 first 😉

            1. I can’t draw too well…but If someone wants to create the poster and film it I’ll march through boston with the poster…Well actually I’d change the two puppets to Mohammed and Moses. I don’t have time to go to Mongtomery, but I lived there from 0-18…I would not be very confident that many people would know what the hell I was trying to show if I walked in Montgomery with that poster…and anyone curious enough to ask would probably talk about it without getting violent and if they seemed violent I’d probably be able to kinda lie about what the poster meant or just outrun them or feign ignorance…Montgomery is a very safe place…people are pretty nice.

              1. Gabe, OK, then Cairo, Egypt? Would you carry around the Muhammad poster in Cairo, Egypt?

                1. You would have to pay me about 30k to go to Cairo Eygpt and when I get there I am not going to purposefully putting myself in wierd situations, I have no confidence in that setting.

                  That doesn’t mean I want to nuke the fucking place.

                  1. However. Our own fucking government gives Eygpt tons of foreign aid…3rd behind Saudi and Israel…why the fuck? and yes I have talked to some Eygpytian friends here and they seem to agree with lots of my foreign policy views but they are much smarter than the average muslim or christian.

              2. It stands to reason that you live in Boston, you piece of human feces.

                Your the asshole who makes this city such a fucking disaster.

                I’m going to take a shit on your mom and mail her to you…

            2. to make a fair comparison, you’d need to make a sign saying “Jesus was Gay” and walk around Mongtomery. I think you could get you ass kicked then. If that didn’t work, “Jesus was a Gay N-word” and walk back & forth between the Dexter avenue baptist church and the SPLC on MLK day, maybe with a little pornographic drawing thrown in too, or while wearing a pink confederate-style uniform and I’m pretty sure you could get your ass kicked, of course that could possibly be by a black person so I’m not sure if that counts by cosmotarian standards.

              1. to make it really fair you’d have to make a sign saying “Bear Bryant sucked cock”…that would definitely get your ass kicked.

                1. the only time I almost got beat up in DC is when some meathead military dude overheard me talking about how much pollution government causes and I focused on military examples and then the meathead said I should be thankful I am “protected” then I said I was more in danger from him than anyone else and when he threatened to kick my ass…my formerly skeptical friends told the meathead that he was merely proving my point.

              2. If you’re not beaten down by a white male, cosmotarians couldn’t care less.

            3. It is fair to note, of course, that the above video took place at a university.

              We had people giving all manner of controversial speeches, lectures, and street preaching when I was at school, and I don’t ever recall anything like that happening.

              More recently, of course, Tom Tancredo attempted to host a talk about illegal immigration that was halted when people started breaking windows in from outside. Way to start a dialogue, Chapel Hill.

              At any rate, I don’t think it’s farfetched to expect a higher tolerance for freedom of speech at an institute of higher learning.

        2. The Islamic throat-cutters are Max’s buddies.

        3. I approve of what happened to Lars Vilks. He got less than he deserved.

      2. By the way Max, I responded to your last comments for this post :

        https://reason.com/blog/2010/05…..g#comments

    2. Impotent rage has to be one of the funniest things I can imagine. It’s so…impotent.

    3. yeah because people who threaten to kill you for expressing an opinion are “easy targets” for criticism
      fuck you max

    4. Max, you must be in this video you free speech hating idiot.

    5. Max, give it up… it’s time to let go. John Edwards lost. Get over it. You’ll never bear his love child now.

  3. I’d like to see the racist Swedes open their borders.

    1. They have and many of my followers live there.

  4. So mexicans are good but muslims are bad…is that the official cosmotarian position?

    1. ??

      umm.. because Mexicans aren’t threatening to kill people over drawings?

    2. I’m assuming if you were saying this to me face-to-face, the gap between the two posts are you letting the red drain from your face before exasperating again.

    3. I am not sure what a cosmotarian is, but I like to judge people’s goodness or badness individually, not by group.

      1. Zeb, you sound like a sand monkey lover to me…we don’t ppreciate your sort round here. This is about free speach you see…now how much longer before we nuke those camel jockeys…everyone of em is a potential insurgant terrists!

  5. Who is suggesting to:
    “to start a genocidal war”?

    1. That would be me. That is an idea I support.

    2. I only wanted a final solution…genocide is such a harsh word.

    3. Richard Rodriguez
      Machete
      (be sure to watch the trailer, it’s great)

  6. “Raaaaacist!!”

    1. That is right! Anyone who disagrees with me on anything is a racist! Because thoughts and ideas are actually races!!

  7. no muslim ever called me nigger

    1. No, the peaceful, mainstream Muslims are just folks. The radical Islamists, on the other hand, just call you infidel pig and say that your head should be cut off because of the lifestyle you live – and would like nothing more to see America destroyed and all “non-believers” either converted or killed.

      Having said that, though, upon second though, I’m not sure I see your point – if there is a rational one to be had in there somewhere.

      1. have you read islamic religious texts? it is far from peaceful. muslims who are otherwise reasonable and nonviolent are still hypocrites. in the middle east far too many muslims are violent or support violence, just as their religion orders. religion encourages people to believe delusions and act irrationally.

        1. Have you ever read the Bible? Christians who are otherwise reasonable and nonviolent are still hypocrites. In the USA, far too many supposed Christians are violent or support violence, as they claim their religion orders. Religion encourages people to believe delusions and act irrationally.

          1. Forgot to add “It is far from peaceful” after “Have you ever read the Bible.”

          2. Unlike the non-religious, who never commit acts of violence.

          3. hey don’t try and put words in my mouth, I think the christian religion is awful too. and I agree that christians, if they are otherwise reasonable and nonviolent, are hypocrites for following such a hateful religion.

            1. Christianity is the only reason that you think hate is a bad thing.

              1. religious hatred is a bad thing, doesn’t matter which cult. rational hatred is another thing.

                1. *I meant religious hatred in the sense of hatred derived from religious doctrine. not the hatred of religion, that would be rational.

                  1. What about the hatred of double standards?

                    1. actually I believe being secular is rational, there is no evidence for or against the existence of a god, so there is no reason to believe one way or the other for sure.

                      if hate serves a rational purpose then it is not a double standard, its different from irrational hatred.

              2. Christianity is the only reason that you think hate is a bad thing.

                False. My life experience as a rational human being having witnessed the stupidity and uselessness of blind hate is the reason I think hate is a bad thing.

                Are you proposing that Jews, Hindus and Bhuddists think hate is a bad thing only because of Christianity?

                And I see an awful lot of hatred coming from self-described “Christians.”

                1. yeah look at all the hatred for the jews in the islamic world.

                2. I think what the previous comment was trying to point out was that your “life experience” is derived from growing up in a post-enlightenment society which was largely shaped by the teachings of Christ.

                  I *have* read the Bible, and Jesus didn’t advocate violence against anybody.

                  (Okay, okay, he did say it would be better if child molesters were drowned… but I think we can all agree that that’s a special case.)

                  1. Jesus had no problems with the cruelty of the old testament Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil
                    in Matthew 10:34 Jesus says Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
                    cruelty in the new testament: http://www.skepticsannotatedbi….._list.html

                    1. and to say the enlightenment was due to christianity is a laugh, it was the church losing power and the rise of reason that shaped post-enlightenment society.

                    2. 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

                3. What I am suggesting is that, whether you like it or not, the cultural gestalt in which you exist has been defined by Christianity. Your notions of right and wrong are delineated by Christian morality whether you accept particular aspects of that morality or not. Your arguments are based on that gestalt. If Christianity is eliminated from our society, no one will listen to you whine about fairness or equality or whatever it is you are calling hate. You will simply be ignored or killed and all that is you will vanish from the world.

                  1. hilarious, my notions of right and wrong derive from my morality which is derived from reason not myth. faith is shit. Epicurus existed before christianity, his philosophy has shaped my own more than anything in the bible. suck it.

                    1. Epicurus existed before christianity, his philosophy has shaped my own more than anything in the bible.

                      So, Hacha Cha, you grew up in a society of Epicurians? Somehow I doubt that. If you grew up in a Western Society, you grew up in a society with a foundation in Christianity. That foundation has shaped and defined most of your world view whether you acknowledge it or not.

                    2. the foundation of America has more to do with primarily deists. I didn’t get my values from society but from my family and friends who are not religious. I get my values from Epicurus, you said my values are delineated from christianity, fuck you. you are arrogant to attribute such things to christians.

                    3. and yes, in a way I did grow up in an Epicurean society

                  2. Human perception of right and wrong were not defined by the Bible, or any religion for that matter. Religions simply took basic understandings of morality as previously defined by the human race, put them in a book, and claimed they were the word of their god.

              3. Even supposing that is true, that is no reason to hold onto the other parts of Christianity which are at times irrational, hateful or violent. Christianity is the source of a lot of good things in Western culture, but that doesn’t mean that those good things are not possible without it.

                1. yeah its called the Jefferson bible

                  1. sorry zeb, I misread your post

                  2. sorry zeb, I misread your post

                    1. or did I… when you said, “but that doesn’t mean that those good things are not possible without it.” did you mean “it” as christianity, or what?

          4. In the USA, far too many supposed Christians are violent or support violence, as they claim their religion orders.

            *[citation needed]

            1. Oh great, now I’m getting spoofed.

              Anyhow – KKK, many white supremacists, Fred Phelps and his gang of nutbags – all base their views on their particular reading of the Bible. Many others. I’m not saying “Christians are all bad.” Just that – like radical Islamists – some will take the Bible, which is a complicated assemblage of interesting stories – and use the words to support the most bizarre, outrageous and hateful positions, and to rationalize and justify ugly and violent actions.

              1. Oh great, now I’m getting spoofed.
                Well, I am a lazy troll.

            2. You really can’t think of any self-described Christians who have used their religion to justify violence in the US? I find that hard to believe. What kind of citation are you looking for, a list of every such act that has ever been committed and a proof that that collection of such acts is in fact “far too many”?

              1. History clearly shows that any and all types of authority will be co-opted by the unscrupulous. Religious authority is no exception. However, it would be foolish to single out religious authority for special condemnation. Eliminating religious authority will not eliminate all types of authority. At most, such an elimination would simply increase the influence of other types of authority. An advantage of Christian religious authority is that when it is being abused, say for instance by clergy trying to use Christianity to justify slavery, other Christians can point out the contradictions in the arguments and behavior of the abusers and so limit the damage and influence of those abusers.

                Unfortunately, many of those who condemn Christianity seem to advocate a society free of any absolute notions of good and bad behavior. Such a society would quickly devolve into a brutish nightmare.

                1. who is many? most people have a sense of right and wrong, people don’t need religion to have that. now I know you can’t comprehend that with your brainwashed mind, but its true. continue on though, I have no problem with no violent theists, believe whatever the fuck you want to, its those who violate others rights that I hate.

                  1. *nonviolent

                  2. “most people have a sense of right and wrong”
                    Of course they do. It is what they view as right and wrong and the source from which they derive those views that matter. A religion primarily reinforces and perpetuates the system of values associated with that religion. You have a system of values which is defined by a Christian cultural gestalt modified by your particular life experiences, which, judging by the hostility in your posts, involves some conflict with the Christian system of morality. I am sure that in most respects your values align fairly closely with Christian values.

                    1. not really they are more in line with Epicurus, any resemblance to christianity is simply because the bible is full of plagiarism. I do like how Thomas Jefferson took out the supernatural bullshit and made his own version of the bible. I don’t believe in most of the 10 commandments, in fact just thou shalt not steal, because I still believe in killing in self defense.

                    2. Do you believe in fairness? Do you believe in the political, economic and personal dignity of the individual? Do you believe that, for the most part, honesty is a good thing and that deception is a bad thing? Is universal suffrage a good thing? Should there be one set of laws that apply to everyone? Should people casually kill one another? Should governments be representative? Should individuals keep the fruits of their labors?

                      Epicurus predates Christianity, but Judaism predates Epicurus and Christianity is in large part a transformation of Judaism into a non-tribal religious tradition. Of course, Western Civilization is an amalgam of Judeo-Christian culture and Greco-Romam culture so Epicurianism is part of our society as well.

                      I would argue that the most effective way to create a just and content society is to be sure that a critical mass of every class in society internalizes the Golden Rule of the Old Testament. If the Golden Rule is so internalized, the society as a whole will adopt the values expressed in the questions in the first paragraph.

                      There are probably other values associated with Christianity that you also agree with such as a prohibition on adults having sex with children, the importance of exercising some control over one’s passions and some sense of duty to (voluntarily) assist those who cannot help themselves.

                    3. I treat others based on their actions not on how I want to be treated. I don’t feel any sense of duty to assist anyone but myself and my loved ones. being against sex with children is not christian, christians married children all the time. and what about everything you said that is found in other philosophies and religions that predates judaism? they all plagiarised the egyptians and hamarabi, they have no monopoly on morality and there is nothing original about their morality.

                    4. Hammurabi, Code #195 and others- Honor your father and your mother.
                      Hammurabi Code #210, 214, 229, 230 and others- You shall not murder.
                      Hammurabi, Code # 129-133 and several others- You shall not commit adultery.
                      Hammurabi Codes #6, 8, 9, 21, 22 and many others- You shall not steal.
                      Hammurabi, Code #1-3 and many others- You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
                      Hammurabi, Codes #6,8,9,21,22, and others- You Shall not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor. (wife/property)…

                      this is just a small example of how the christians try and claim they came up with morality, but in reality their whole religion is plagiarized from other religions, laws, and stories.

                    5. “they all plagiarised the egyptians and hamarabi, they have no monopoly on morality and there is nothing original about their morality.”

                      Are you seriously suggesting that there is no fundamental difference between the Judeo-Christian system of values and the values practiced by the Ancient Egyptians? The rulers in Ancient Egypt plundered the wealth of their societies in order to build vast monuments to satisfy their own egos. They also sacrificed other people so that they would have servants with them in the afterlife.

                      No one said that Christians have a monopoly on morality. Every society has a system of morality. No one claimed that everything about Christian morality is original. Societies, particularly vibrant societies, adopt and adapt ideas they come in contact with. Few ideas are new. What is new is the particular set of ideas that are retained as is and which are modified or discarded. The stagnation of the once vibrant Islamic culture and the rise in influence of Christian culture suggests that Muslims were doing something wrong and Christians were doing something right. The demographic death of post-Christian Europe suggests that post-Christian society is doing something wrong.

                    6. you can’t say society is built on christian ideas if their ideas are plagiarized, its not their ideas. you are trying to say that the christians can take credit for all modern morality in the US, that is bullshit. many of the founding fathers were deists.

                    7. “Are you seriously suggesting that there is no fundamental difference between the Judeo-Christian system of values and the values practiced by the Ancient Egyptians? The rulers in Ancient Egypt plundered the wealth of their societies in order to build vast monuments to satisfy their own egos.”
                      Really? What about Cathedrals, and the Vatican?

                2. But other christians can’t point out the contradictions unless they are satisfied with no longer being welcome at that church.

                  And people will always argue over interpretations of right and wrong in any religious text, so it is the ideology of religion that fails in the end.

                  1. “But other christians can’t point out the contradictions unless they are satisfied with no longer being welcome at that church.”

                    How was slavery abolished in the U.S.? Abolitionists were primarily Christians who saw chattel slavery as an abomination. Of course, Christianity is a religious tradition and not a single religion and America was based on Protestant Christianity which downplays the religious authority of clergy to some extent and incorporates the ideas of congregationalism and personal revelation so there is no single “official” set of values although there are some points of broad agreement.

                    1. On a purely stylistic level, I find think a bit far more convincing and mature in his/her thought than Hacha cha who strikes me as one of those personally obnoxious types who has it all figured out and claims a consistent system of morality but whose easy use of profanity and the ad hominem attack betrays a lack of respect for his/her fellow man and ultimately his/her self.

                    2. “Hacha cha …strikes me as one of those … types who has it all figured out”

                      The young do tend to think they have it all figured out. I’m sure in a few years Hacha Cha will mellow enough to see past whatever it is that inspires his animus towards Christianity.

                    3. yeah because you know my real age, but I’ll take that as a compliment. the ad hominem attacks were not meant to convince anyone that you were wrong, they were just a fuck you. too many people think that using everyday language invalidates the argument, that is incorrect.

                    4. and its the religion not its nonviolent followers that I have a problem with.

        2. no…I haven’t I really am not interested enough…one magical religous book was enough for me.

          The bible made the christian god seem like a pretty fucking wierd unpredictably violent, insecure jerk and yet I don’t deny that there are many extremely kind people that take their kids to worship around their favorite symbols of torture.

          I’m just not that convinced that muslims as a group are much scarier than Foreign Policy experts as a group.

          who is the idol of foreign policy experts? maybe we can draw pictures of Winston Churchill doing dirty things with Mohammed.

          1. “maybe we can draw pictures of Winston Churchill doing dirty things with Mohammed.”

            But wouldn’t that offend Muslims? Would YOU want to offend Muslims?

            1. Ya I really don’t like Muslims or their religion a whole lot…I’m just kinda arguing out of principle…I thought you’d understand that I don’t like monotheism at all.

              1. Fine, OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

          2. To be fair, the bad stuff is all Old Testament Jehovah. New Testament God really cleaned up his act a lot.

            1. there is still a lot of awful stuff in the new testament, don’t be an apologist.

        3. Agreed, but so does science. So does anything. People are just waiting for an excuse to spill each other’s intestines. Certainty is ignorance.

            1. BTW, I thought South Park made that point really elegantly in “Go God Go” and “Go God Go XII”.

              1. I’ll check it out once I’m done drawing this here Muhammad cartoon.

      2. None of the muslims I ever met call me names…and if they did I would not be scared…but the US Government takes my money and lies about why. Out of any large group we can make up percentages about the number that want us dead….x% of carbon tax proponents say humans are a virus on the planet and they want us dead.

        X% of christians say I am a sinner and want me dead.

        X% of the government thinks I deserve to be in prison or dead because of my thoughts against being a tax slavery.

        X% of Mexicans are in favor of the plan of san diego…

        yet the majority of these people are great folks(even if a little dumb) and the really dumb ones don’t ever seem to be able to accomplish their goals of getting me.(attatching firecrackers to bags of fertilizer is not scary)…i feel completely safe to say I’d sniper attack Mohamed on the internet…yet the people who I don’t feel safe in typing that message about are the ones I am a little more scared of.

        1. “None of the muslims I ever met call me names”

          well gosh Gabe, I guess we’ll just wait until you personally are the victim of radical islamic terrorism, cause that’s obviously the exact moment that it will become a problem for you – and since you are the center of the universe…

          1. cool…so I can have my money back in the wars on Islam?

            1. Sure, but just for you buddy.

          2. You’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to be a victim of radical Islamic terrorism.

            Also, I’m not clear on how drawing Mohammed prevents anyone from being killed by radical Islamic terrorism.

            1. “Also, I’m not clear on how drawing Mohamed prevents anyone from being killed by radical Islamic terrorism.”

              Really? How about by making it clear we will no longer be intimidated by those assholes.

              1. Draw a cartoon of Christ, and feel the wrath of… letters to the local newspaper.

                Draw a cartoon of Mohammed, and you might get your ass blown up.

                1. Draw a cartoon of Ayn Rand, and you get banned from Hit & Run.

              2. I’m not clear how that prevents anyone from being killed by Islamic terrorism either.

                1. Nice false choice. Apparently we can only support ideals that reduce terrorist attacks.

                  Wow. What a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the nature of freedom of speech and expression. Free speech is designed to open debate, especially when that debate may involve subjects on which some groups or individuals do not agree.

                  Free speech that is restrained to non-conflicts is essentially usesless. Calling bullshit out into the open is the whole point.

                  1. That was written in response to domoarrigato’s comment above. I didn’t start the chain of discussion about preventing terrorist attacks.

                    1. It’s obvious. Huge piles of drawings restrict terrorist supply lines and movements.

        2. What the hell does Muslims calling you names have to do with any of this?

          1. WTF above implied I should be mad at 2 billion people because somebody in Saudi Arabia once supposedly said I am a infidel pig.

            1. Gabe, this is not about “being mad at people”. That was never the point. The point is standing up for free speech.

              1. I’m arguing with the narrative I see today….May 17th is I hate muslims day at Reason.

                As I have repeated, please make fun of Mohammed and this actually is a good contect, but in year 2024 when the political climate is different you could easily dig this shit up and and some 2024 Dave Wiegel is going to say “look at the racist blog posts, wow Episiarch- Moynihan have all the qualifications for a great presidential ticket…

                succesful stint in bisexual porn:check
                lycra green suit: check

                but wait a second Ep and Moynihan are clearly racists of the first order…this completely disqualifies them.

                1. “but wait a second Ep and Moynihan are clearly racists of the first order…this completely disqualifies them.”

                  What does Islam have to do with race?

                  1. …the pro-bomb-iran, pro-sanctions propagandizers frequently employ the story that muslims are the terrorist; they blew up the WTC; therefore any muslim country we bomb in response is justified because they attacked us first.

                    The average person who voted for Bush or Obama(now) accepts that pretty much all of those countries with kinda brownish people are muslim and so bam! all 300k dead- 1 million dead ain’t a big deal…all those muslims pretty much deserved it.

                    You see this is actual genocidal type behavior that is happening right now…and many of those people were not religious and many of them were chrisitian or goat herdease or sunni or shia….but the point of “Hate Muslims Day” at Reason is to make this type of genocide seem more appealing.

                    I guess it is working well. Be proud! nuke those fuckers…quote some scripture and shit kill the son of every mother in Iran…they hate the GAYZS too! You have me convinced, nuking would be too kind…how about we make them all have gay sex first and hten kill them. Sure it is hard to tell who the true radicals are but let god sort em out!

                    1. You still have not told me what Islam has to do with race.

                    2. the americans think the brown races in the mid-east are muslim…beyond that they have nothing to do with one another.

                    3. “the americans think the brown races in the mid-east are muslim…beyond that they have nothing to do with one another.”

                      On what basis do you make this claim?

            2. WTF above implied I should be mad at 2 billion people because somebody in Saudi Arabia once supposedly said I am a infidel pig.

              Nice strawman you’ve built yourself there.

    2. no nigger ever fed a hungry child .. no, wait a minute … I’m confused …

    3. That may be because you havn’t interacted with many arab muslims.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm…..adeofblack

    4. You never lived in Saudi Arabia. Until 1963, Arab Muslims not only called Africans naughty names, they held them as slaves.

      You probably haven’t been paying much attention to the news from the Sudan, either.

  8. and they got their wishes…

    Funny that they threatened the author by saying he would get hurt if he stayed in that city and insulted him by calling him gay… haha

    Amazing how they said “if you wouldn’t of shown the film, this wouldn’t of happened” as if:
    1. They where forced to see it
    2. The film justified violence…

    These people are insane…

  9. Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran

    1. The war party endorses this message.

  10. I guess you don’t need freelancers to shut down unpopular speech when the state does it for you.

  11. Obviously he should be allowed to show the film if someone is willing to host him.

    However,

    a film, produced by a very brave Iranian woman, of Mohammed as a gay man.

    I’m curious, Mr. Moynihan, would you consider a white guy walking down the street in a black inner-city neighborhood in the middle of the night, yelling “NIGGER!” at every person and open window he sees, to be “brave”? Because whatever definition of the word you’re using which applies to the producer of such tripe would seem to include him as well.

    Chutzpah != bravery.

    “Brave” generally implies that the act or acts the person is doing, despite the dangers they put themselves in, are good acts. Going out of your way to offend people who have done you no wrong is not a good act in my book.

    1. Why is Mohammed being portrayed as gay offensive? To anyone who isn’t homophobic, that is?

      1. The same reason calling someone “nigger” is offensive even if you aren’t a racist against blacks.

        And if portraying Mohammed as gay wasn’t offensive to Muslims, this person wouldn’t have done it. Her intent is quite clear.

        1. If, by ‘portraying Mohammed as gay’, you mean ‘quoting the Koran’, then, yes, the portrayal of Mohammed as gay is clearly her intent.

          1. Please describe the quote from the Koran that portrays Mohammed as gay.

            1. Someone has apparently been doing just that for quite a while:

              See this

              And This

              Part of the ‘argument’ used by ‘islamic scholars’ is one of interpretation – otherwise known as an argument from authority.

              I find it puzzling that the Bible is examined for its inconsistencies, while the possibility of strange and inconsistent writings in the Koran are in need of citation.

              Are some religious texts screwy and others not?

              Sorry, but I’ll err on the side of free speech and discussion. Apparently either this guy isn’t as dangerous as a Swedish cartoonist, or the subject matter is something that people don’t want to highlight.

            2. Apparently, my post had “too many notes”.

              Here’s the rest:

              This

              And This

        2. People who are willing to commit violence – or even kill – over slapping Mohammed around posthumously, or uttering the “N” word, are the ones who have lost control of themselves, Tulpa.

          My brother is, mentally, a child, but if someone calls him a “retard”, I don’t beat the shit out of them over it. If I did, I’d be no better than thugs who dole out beatings over drawings of long-dead Muslim icons, or thugs who get pissed off over a term they themselves use.

          Proportional response is so dead.

    2. Those are the people that blew up World Trade Center 7…you think they did us no wrong?!

    3. I think you know the answer. Try being gay in a Muslim country. You end up under a brick wall, or your throat slit, or forced to leave. Chaaaaarming.

      1. Try being gay in a Muslim country.

        Actually, male homosexuality is very common in Arab countries. The late David Brudnoy explained this by speculating that access to women in Arab countries is so tightly controlled that young men can only express their sexuality by having sex with one another.

        1. see, all they really need are more sluts!

          1. That’s all any of us need, dude. And I object to the derogatory term “slut”. It’s not like it’s a bad thing. You’re just a misogynist asshole. Too bad NutraJerk is on vacation and can’t enlighten you with a Feministing link.

            1. no need to object, I use it as a term of endearment.

      2. this can’t be…they don’t even have gays.

    4. How is a cartoon or film casting a long-dead, mystical religious figure in a particular light in any way the equivalent of screaming racial epithets in the middle of the night?

      Pretty stupid and lousy comparison.

      1. Ok disclaimer here:
        I do not propose any bad films be made about Martin Luther King and I am actually mad the government assasinated him even fucking NPR admits this even though you guys refuse to believe this report from NPR and just think I am crazy because you guys all love your governemnt so much….http://edwardrynearson.wordpress.com/king-assassination-was-a-conspiracy/

        anwyay since you are either too dumb or willfully moronic to get the point…what if someone made a stupid film about Martin Luther King snowballing with 12 year old boys and then went to a theatre in down town detroit and showed this film one saturday night…

        that is a comparison Tulpa could have made to make it a little clearer to morons. again I am not anti-martin luther king and there is nothing wrong with it if MLk did like men.

        1. Let me know when you mine some coherency out of that mess.

          And you must be new around here if you think the regulars here “love your government so much.”

          1. Gabe seems to have suffered a head injury.

          2. what would you say about someone making a film that had a bunch of gay stuff with MLK and they made fun of him etc…and then they showed it in downtown detroit…and the crowd got mad?

            Was Mohammed or MLK gay? probly not

            Are MLK and Mohammed both loved by people(who are not terrorist) that would still get possibly violent upon seeing such films in public?

            Do i have different opinion than inner city blacks and muslims? yes…do I intentionally mess with either of them…not often.

            Would one thing get someone condemned by reason and one thing praised? Yes, and I do wonder why.

            1. what would you say about someone making a film that had a bunch of gay stuff with MLK and they made fun of him etc…

              If MLK had written about those things, then they would have relevance, and would be fair game for a discussion.

              It amazes me how little you recognize the totalitarian impulses of radical islamists – “They shouldn’t show that kind of thing.”

              Apparently, Gabe, you’re so frightened of being labeled a racist that violent religious freaks killing to get their way somehow paralyzes you.

            2. If anyone committed violence over a “gay MLK” movie, it would be on THEM for not exercising restraint. It wouldn’t be worth it, in other words.

              Wrong? Yes. But not worth violence.

    5. I’m curious, Mr. Moynihan, would you consider a white guy walking down the street in a black inner-city neighborhood in the middle of the night, yelling “NIGGER!” at every person and open window he sees, to be “brave”?

      No, he’d be an idiot. He’s directly insulting actual people. This would fall under Niven’s rule about throwing things at people with guns.

      This film insults a fictional religious figurehead, one that is frequently used by 12th century thugs to justify violent acts against innocent people. This would fall under burning witches.

      See the difference?

      1. Aw crap, my metaphors don’t agree. Ignore the burning witches. Substitute standing up to the Klan at a lynching.

      2. How is he insulting anyone? He’s simply referencing the fact that they are black. Unless you’re a racist, you should have no problem with that.

        1. Ah, I see we’ve defaulted to idiot mode. Never mind.

    6. Chutzpah

      Zionist!!

    7. Obviously he should be allowed to show the film if someone is willing to host him.

      Dude, this is Sweden. Undoubtedly, taxpayers funded both the film and the venue and, as the protesters pointed out, they pay taxes.

      1. Meh. Our taxes payed a lot of money for “Piss Christ.” Most of us got over it. No beating or arson was attempted as a result, either.

        1. Don’t you want a say in how the money that the government steals from you is spent? It’s preferable that the theft not take place, but once it has occurred…

          I imagine you got over “Piss Christ” because it didn’t gore your particular sacred cow.

          1. But those for whom it did, remember all those fires they started and shitty artists they beat up and tried to kill over NEA grants they objected to?

            Me neither. That’s my point.

            1. Fair enough. However, I didn’t see anyone in the video clip beat anyone or start a fire either and I can understand the anger of the protesters at having their tax dollars used to make a deliberately inciting film.

              1. I didn’t see anyone in the video clip beat anyone

                That’s because the video starts after an angry islamist head-butts Vilks.

                I’m sure the arson attempt on his house wasn’t related at all.

                And don’t play the Libertarian violin.

                These screaming people are fine with tax dollars spent on their own pet causes. This is not a tax allocation issue, it’s a free speech issue. The opposition to tax money supporting art has nothing to do whatsoever with the subject matter. Nobody but you is advocating censorship.

                1. Head butting is a sign of affection in Muslim countries.

                  Sweden is a cold country. Why was it wrong to help Vilks heat his home?

                  1. Head butting, yes, but butt-butting, apparently not.

                    Also, it specifically states in the Swedish Department of Combustion’s Instructions for the use and maintenance of any Thermal Transfer Devices – SW CC12.11.E-0787.4 that any such device must be Carbon Neutral. Gasoline soaked rags are not on the approved listing.

        2. I’m not even christian, but I wouldn’t have cared if some christians went into the musuam and yelled at maplethorpe…and it wouldn’t have made me want to bomb anyone.

          1. Gabe, how would you react if Maplethorpe were muderdered by an Evangelical Christian who made it clear he was killed because of his art and most Christian Churches refused to condemn this murder? And suppose most Christians said something to the effect that “Oh, I would not have killed him myself but I can understand why that guy did ..”

            That is what we are talking about with Islam right now. That is why we must stand up. that is why we must draw Muhammad.

            1. Gabe?

              Gabe?

            2. That is what we are talking about with Islam right now.

              Bullshit. Absolute, complete, utter, bigoted, sensless bullshit. Consistent with what we’ve come to expect from you, though.

              1. I call bullshit on your bullshit. You can argue percentages of radicalization, point to friendlies like the Kurds and many Iranian protesters, but the fact that Comedy Cartoons are self-censoring islamic depictions, while running Jesus Craps on Bush and Flag Episodes, you might want to re-think your accusation of bigot.

              2. “Bullshit. Absolute, complete, utter, bigoted, sensless bullshit. Consistent with what we’ve come to expect from you, though.”

                It is interesting how easily the word bigot is used now. Would you call me a bigot if I accused neo-NAZIs of being antisemitic? I am basic my accusations upon their actual actions. We have seen many, many cases of artists and writers killed and threatened because of their works by radical Islamists without much condemnation from supposedly “mainstream” mosques. When I start hearing severe condemnation of events like the attack on Theo Van Goh and the translator of Salman Rushdie’s novel from the leaders of several “mainstream” branches of Islam I will be happy to apologize for my above post. Note I did not say CAIR, they are a political, not a religious organization. I want to hear it from the leaders of the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. When that happens I will apologize for my above post. Please let me know when this occurs.

            3. While I’m not Gabe, I do wonder what your point is here. Would you think that our civilization was going to become a theocracy if everyone didn’t dunk crucifixes in urine?

              1. No. Because Christians, (along with some art critics) rightly questioned the artistic merit of such an exhibit, effectively exercising acceptable criticism. No theocracy there.

                You may well notice that the same ‘artist’ has not dared to do any Koran related works.

                I wonder why?

              2. “While I’m not Gabe, I do wonder what your point is here. Would you think that our civilization was going to become a theocracy if everyone didn’t dunk crucifixes in urine?”

                If I had seen a similar reaction from Christians due to that work I would have supported something like an “Everybody Dunk Jesus in Urine Day”. Guess what? I didn’t.

      2. OK, hadn’t thought of that. Definitely makes the situation more complicated.

        But, my point about the supposed “bravery” of the filmmaker is unrelated to this.

        1. Was what happened to Theo Van Gogh justified?

          1. Nope. Nowhere have I said that violence against offensive people is justified. In fact, I have said the opposite. Serveral times indeed.

            Also, van Gogh’s work was not simply done for the sake of offending people, so it’s really not comparable anyway.

            1. van Gogh’s work was not simply done for the sake of offending people, so it’s really not comparable anyway.

              You’re making a fairly large assumption that:

              A) The subject matter of the video has nothing to do with actual religious writings.

              or,
              B) The subject matter of the video is not an artistic statement about the obscene use of islam for purposes of intimidation, as evidenced in the Van Gogh killing.

              Or possibly both.

              How do you know this?

              1. There is no doubt in my mind that (B) is true. I find it extremely doubtful that (A) is false, but it’s possible I’m wrong. Luckily, I’m not on a jury deciding whether to send someone to jail, I’m just an anonymous blog commenter whose posts won’t affect anyone in any way.

                1. Yes, but what about (C)?

                  What is option C?

                  I don’t know, it could be in Vilks’ head.

                  Or maybe not.

                  Nobody seems interested in what Vilks was trying to say enough to ask him. His emphasis seems to be on freedom of speech and expression, as he drew his Mohammed cartoon a year after the original cartoon riots. After that, his life was threatened.

                  Sounds to me like B might be more true than you’d like.

            2. IMO, Tulpa, in neither the van Gogh case, nor this one, was violence justified.

              I was asking the question more for a broad POV than just yours, by the way. I should have phrased it better.

    8. a white guy walking down the street in a black inner-city neighborhood in the middle of the night, yelling “NIGGER!”

      Apparently you have seen The Kentucky Fried Movie recently Tulpa?

      1. Quite possibly my favorite moment from that film.

    9. I’m curious, Mr. Moynihan, would you consider a white guy walking down the street in a black inner-city neighborhood in the middle of the night, yelling “NIGGER!” at every person and open window he sees, to be “brave”? Because whatever definition of the word you’re using which applies to the producer of such tripe would seem to include him as well.

      So Muslims are upset because this is making light of the fact that they have risen from slavery and endured hundreds of years of systemic and cultural oppression? Damn, I’ve been reading it all wrong.

        1. well when we were young me and a black friend drove around Newark yelling nigger at everyone… confused looks is what we got, looking back I guess we’re lucky thats all we got. I remember the friend driving rolled the windows up and put the child locks on, so we opened the doors to yell it.

          1. I was walking down a street in San Francisco once and a car load of guys drove by, looked at me and yelled, “Hey, Bitch!” But I’m a guy. I was so confused …

    10. There is a play about Jesus as a gay man. I guess you are okay with Christians beating the crap out of the playwrite. He was asking for it afterall.

      1. Of course I’m not OK with that. I’m also not OK with beating up a guy for calling black people “nigger”.

        My whole point was that people who set out to offend do not deserve to be lionized as Moynihan has attempted to do. I’m not addressing what the hecklers did at this time.

      2. I should add, playwrights who make such plays about Jesus are scum in my opinion and deserve to be put out on the street and starved (noncoercively, of course).

  12. I can’t get over all the Swedes sitting there casually looking around, probably wondering what happened to their country. WIth the exception of the blonde girl later in the video, the Swedes are PUSSIES! I doubt Americans would have put up with this shit for very long.

    These particular “protesters” are so animalistic. Savages, really. It’s fascinating to look at them up close and see the face of intolerance and hatred. Why they choose to live in a free country, and don’t go back to the Middle East is beyond me.

    1. I think that just sitting there is reasonable. The protesters are interesting to watch (like at a zoo), and not an immediate physical threat. Also, they’re fanatics who’ve abandoned rationality, so no point “arguing” with them. I guess you could start a brawl or a shouting match, but what good would that do?… it would undermine the bad PR the religion of peace was giving itself.

      1. Darren’s mad nunchcuk skills would be on full display.

        I have also seen Darren’s legs. That muslim would not like to feel one of those badboys doing a round house on his face. I cna promise you that.

        1. This robo-posting troll Gabe is mentally ill. Or a bot. Either way, eeeurgh.

      2. … and not an immediate physical threat.

        Unless your last name happens to be Vilks.

  13. On the bright side, once we get our donut tax our cops will be as fit as those swede cops.

  14. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QfVW…..schung.jpg

    This is pretty great.

  15. This is pretty great:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QfVW…..schung.jpg

  16. So one of the most progressive countries on earth cannot integrate just two distinct religious groups in a country, even with the benefit of a massive welfare state. goodbye, liberal arrogance.

    1. But they have universal health care, dude! We finally don’t look like total jerks on the world stage, because now we have…uh, what exactly is “Obamacare” anyway?

      1. Imagine a world where christian activists protested a showing of “The Last Supper” even half as violently. Hmm. It’s pretty obvious that they would instantly be termed domestic terroristic tea bagger right wing extremists and their houses (termed compounds in the media) would be raided by the ATF. I imagine their dogs would be shot within 4 hours.

  17. So mexicans are good but muslims are bad…is that the official cosmotarian position?

    From out here in un-cosmo-world, the thinking, such as it is, looks about like this:

    A) “Mexicans” (but you know what we mean) are awesome because they cause unemployment among black guys and other losers, and poor people are Nazis (unless they’re Mexicans), so fuck them. With a huge Mexican dick. Because they’re racists, so they deserve the one-sided economic race war we’re waging against them. Using Mexicans.

    Also, Mexicans showed us how to put cilantro in everything, and cilantro tastes bad to poor people who aren’t Mexicans. +1

    2) Muslims were fine for a long time because they’re not Christians, but then they messed with Rushdie, which reminded us of things Christians in movies do, so we were kinda mad at them, then we forgot, and then Muslims were cool again because Republicans were mad at them for some mysterious reason, but then they messed with South Park! Twice! And the second time was WRONG! Because the South Park guys are sort of half-Republicans, so the Muslims got one free messing-with of them.

    And the other people Muslims kill all the time don’t count, because those people aren’t famous, so they’re Nazis.

    no muslim ever called me nigger

    Yes, it is good to be white.

    1. [Citation Needed]

      1. This is obviously embellished, but seems generally true to the trends in Reason’s attitudes (though Moynihan is by far the biggest contributor to the recent Muslim-baiting).

        I might have to subscribe to Reason just so I can cancel my subscription in disgust. Not subscribing in disgust doesn’t have the same oomph.

        1. Do you not agree that a religion is a collection of ideas? Should an idea be off limits for debate merely because it is part of a collection of ideas called a religion?

          1. Of course not.

            The film Moynihan references was not “debating” Islam, nor is the silly “Draw Mohammed” campaign. Both are intended to offend for the sake of offending.

            I have no ethical problem with sincere debate that some people find offensive. I do have an ethical problem with offending people for no other reason than offense.

            1. The violent response was still unwarranted, Tulpa.

              1. No shit. Are you guys trying to give me carpal tunnel syndrome from typing that I don’t approve of violence and/or govt restraint of offensive speech? I’ve said it like 20 times in this thread alone.

            2. screw you Tulpa

            3. “I do have an ethical problem with offending people for no other reason than offense.”

              Do you have an ethical problem withe creating a film about spousal abuse like Mr. Van Goh did? Apparently his muderer did. It is because of incidents like that that the Everybody Draw Muhammed Day is so important. Their intention is to intimidate us into silence. We must show that we are not intimidated. We must do this if we do not want to become a theorcacy-by-default.

              1. No. Van Gogh’s work was not done for the sole purpose of offending people. It did cause offense, but that was merely a side effect.

                I (obviously) have a much greater ethical problem with murder than tailor-made offensive speech.

                And if drawing cartoons is the only thing that can save us from falling under Sharia law, then you must have an extremely low estimate of our own culture’s robustness and strength. Not that such a condition is uncommon among bedwetting neocons.

                1. “And if drawing cartoons is the only thing that can save us from falling under Sharia law, then you must have an extremely low estimate of our own culture’s robustness and strength.”

                  Read about the fall of Rome and get back to me.

            4. I do have an ethical problem with offending people for no other reason than offense.

              I may get myself damned in your system of ethics, but go fuck yourself.

              And hell yes “Draw Mohammed Day” is debating Islam. I draw a picture of Mohammed, and the mohammedans react like petulant children at best, violently at worst. I win the debate.

            5. The film Moynihan references was not “debating” Islam,

              Some would argue that point. See my comment Here

              Free speech requires no gatekeeper to authorize which subjects constitute “debate”. Especially the use of physical coercion. This should be obvious.

              It is the islamists who are frightened of this ‘debate’, because their religion does not stand up to examination. I understand their use of Political Correctness, however, as a tool for the control of others.

              Why? Apparently it works on some people.

              1. Free speech requires no gatekeeper to authorize which subjects constitute “debate”.

                Free speech also does not imply freedom from criticism, which is apparently the “freedom” that you guys are speaking on behalf of, as I’ve merely expressed my distaste for the film, not sanctioned violence or govt restraint. I reserve the right to act as gatekeeper of what I consider debate and what I consider offense gratis offense, thank you very much.

                It is the islamists who are frightened of this ‘debate’, because their religion does not stand up to examination.

                That may be so. Of course, since a person who acted only on beliefs that stand up to rational scrutiny would necessarily lie down and starve to death, the beliefs any of us base our actions on wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny in the final analysis, so your tone of superiority is unwarranted.

                1. Free speech also does not imply freedom from criticism

                  Seeking out ‘offensive’ material, eschewing debate in favor of head-butting, threats of murder and arson are indicative of people who need to be offended for the purposes of expanding political and economic power. Had they only criticised Vilks, they may have defused the offense and embarrassed Vilks – but then how do you rally the troops?

                  That you miss this point is troubling.

                  I reserve the right to act as gatekeeper of what I consider debate and what I consider offense gratis offense, thank you very much.

                  But you don’t have the right to physically threaten me for ‘offending’ your sensibilities, especially when there’s a direct link between your ‘sensibilities’ and political and financial power through such intimidation. When you assume that right for yourself, expect me to counter with violence as well. Your choice.

                  Your position that Vilks video was simply offensive and has no artistic merit whatsoever makes me surprised that you aren’t even more disdainful of the islamists because of their inability to even ridicule such a simplistic and shallow effort at affront. If they are, on average, as you seem to imply, this incapable of even base interaction, how can you seriously put forth that the two cultures can intermingle at all?

                  Of course, since a person who acted only on beliefs that stand up to rational scrutiny would necessarily lie down and starve to death…

                  So – all humanity is irrational, then? Ok. I wouldn’t then expect you to become upset at a full nuking of the middle east.

                  Please.

                  Let’s not argue rationality, or even humanity. It’s beyond us, remember?

                  Or do you simply get to call the shots of what is and is not allowed by irrational beings?

                  1. I see no point in addressing you further on this topic, as you continue to assume that I approve of the actions of the hecklers in this video. I could type out denials of this for the next 16 hours and it wouldn’t get through your skull, apparently.

                    Good night, asshole.

                    1. Good night to you as well.

                      I didn’t assume any such thing as your approval. I merely questioned your supposition that Vilks’ work was entirely without artistic merit, especially with regard to the Van Gogh murder and other threats to people who simply dare to question islam in a similar manner that they question other religions.

                      I could as well type out over and over the importance of the preservation of freedom of expression, only to have you duck the obvious by attempting to belittle the merit of Vilks’ work.

                      Vilks, along with many others, are the victims (sometimes willing) of an organized, islamic based threat that seeks to stifle what they can say, write or draw.

                      Sleep well. And remember,
                      behave.

                2. “Free speech also does not imply freedom from criticism,”

                  But this criticism does not have to include threats to murder an artist. Mere criticism is fine with me. There were many Christians who heavily criticized Mapplethorpe. I draw the line at threatening his life however.

                  1. Tulpa, I didn’t figure you’d be in favor of violent responses over these kinds of incidents. Sorry for the insinuation.

    2. This is the most incoherent attempt at sarcasm I’ve seen in a while, most particularly because CILANTRO IS THE GREATEST HERB OF ALL TIME, ASSHOLE. Even better than basil.

      1. there is almost nothing that doesn’t taste better with fresh cilantro.

        1. I third. I love cilantro.

        2. I’m sure several of us can think of many examples.

          1. like everything, for example..

            There’s nothing that pisses me off more than people ruining a perfectly good salsa by dumping tons of cilantro in it. I don’t like cilantro but it’s flavor is strong. You don’t need much. Just a little bit…is that too hard?!?

      2. CILANTRO IS THE GREATEST HERB OF ALL TIME

        Hey! No way, man. (giggle)

        1. DAVE’S NOT HERE, MAN.

      3. Not only is it (one of) the greatest herb(s) of all time, it’s used heavily in cuisines as far apart as Mexico and India. An herb that versatile rocks.

        1. Beer is more versatile. It can be used to wash down nachos AND marinate brots.

      4. Cumin is the most over-rated and spice. It’s like the U2 of the spice world.

        1. I thought Posh was the most over-rated spice.

      5. wow I thought that was very funny sarcasm.

        1. I didn’t even crack a smile.

      6. Better than basil? I think not.

        You can have your Italianess taken away for such remarks, you know.

        1. The only basil is good for is naming British aristocrats.

  18. This is great:

    http://www.google.com/imgres?i…..tbs=isch:1

  19. Some more video of the event (this from toward the top of the seating area): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

    1. I had wondered why there were a bunch of cops headed that way.

  20. I wish those Europeans had stood up for free speech a little more. Why weren’t they yelling? They just sat like sheep. Sure it was a tasteless movie (what European short film isn’t?) but seriously grow a pair Europe!

    1. I dunno, sitting there with dignity while the muslims make assholes of themselves is a very Euro thing to do.

  21. The reaction against Muslims in Europe will happen. And it will be ugly.

    1. wait until they interrupt my football match.

    2. I agree. Savages like these are spoiling for a fight and eventually they will get one.

      I think the united states is fine though, our muslim population is relatively small, tends to think of themselves as American first and muslim second (at least compared to european muslims), have pretty substantial religious freedom when compared to europe, and are very well integrated as well

      1. You only say this because American Muslims dress up as Mexicans.

      2. wrong, america already has its fair share of islamic extremism. it’s almost as bad as europe but not as visible because they’re a small minority compared to european countries. The US had several incidents with converts, a group of american muslims in a-stan, the soldier in texas and recently the pakistani in nyc. Same threat.

        1. You left out Miss USA, the Lebanonese chick from Michigan.

          1. Lebanon doesn’t count, cause it’s full of sex.

            Also hot arabish chicks who aren’t afraid of wearing bikinis and showing off their lustrous black hair are more likely to get their throats slit than non-arabish chicks.

          2. heh, ok but lebanon has a lot of christians and she’s probably a lebanese christian.

        2. don’t forget about the blue eyed blond al quaeda…fox news told me they are coming to et us too.

        3. OK, so 2 specific American Muslims and a vague group operating overseas is “our fair share”? Yes, the US Muslim population is smaller than Europe’s, but it’s not THAT small.

          1. What about Anwar Al-Awlaki, the hate preacher? He’s american too and very active. Muslims in the US tend to live in their bubble as european muslims do. I personally believe that muslims are NOT compatible with the west as it leads to civil unrest eventually. Europe is particularly bad, as many muslims use our welfare system to support their huge families and refuse to integrate/assimilate. One recommendation to the US: Don’t give minorities too much welfare. The advantage of the US so far is that new citizens were forced to participate and integrate as they had to it to find work and social acceptance. Immigrants in europe can just sit on ass all day while sucking our welfare system dry. Don’t make that mistake.

    3. The sooner the better. Those muslim fucks need to be sent back to the squalor that is the only thing they know how to create.

      1. not that I agree with deporting muslims, but your post got me thinking. there are no islamic countries, ones that have sharia law, that are an example of a great, good, or even mediocre country.

        1. Hacha Cha’s revelation: culture matters.

        2. Turkey is a decent country. Malaysia and Indonesia aren’t too bad either for the most part.

          Also, there is the fact that we’ve been holding back the natural political evolution of several Middle Eastern countries to ensure the continued flow of their oil to our European friends and their use of our dollar in oil transactions. See: Mubarak, Hasni.

          1. “Natural evolution.”

            Now that’s funny.

            Bring on the Hegel!

          2. Malaysia and Indonesia: rich in natural resources and large in population, but poor, violent and unhygienic. They could be wealthy and prosperous, but are instead third world shitholes.

          3. yes but Turkey isn’t under sharia law

            1. OK, I missed the Sharia law bit. But that’s kind of an unfair question, isn’t it? There are no Christian countries with laws based on the Book of Leviticus that are good or great countries either.

              1. agreed. are there any countries currently basing their law on levitcus though? why is it that people assume when I say something bad about islam that people think I am saying something positive about christianity? for the millionth time, I think they are both awful.

          4. Turkey went through a period of pretty rabid secularism, though it’s fading.

        3. Wow. Next thing you might recognize ‘open borders’ in general also will have unpredictable, and possibly incredibly negative consequences.

          And Turkey’s currently on the slow crawl, almost trot, to Middle East mediocrity.

  22. I think a lot of people are forgetting that this is about free speech. people have every right to criticize islam, whether it offends people or not. don’t forget that the organization of the islamic conference tries to get religious free speech banned at the UN, as well as urging other countries to do the same.

    1. that sounds like another reason to quit the UN and stop giving money to the fucks…yet all the cosmotards think the UN is so fucking sophisticated and the foreign policy experts get their pants all creamy dreaming up world wide carbon tax schemes and other bullshit that they want the UN to help push so George Bush and Barrack Obama both love them some UN.

      1. I haven’t even looked into the Organization for Islamic conferences but I bet good money that if you do you will eventually find funding from some Carnegie or Rockefeller assholes.

      2. someone should make a list of reasons the US needs to get out the UN, there has to be over 100 reasons.

        1. A better (and shorter) use of time would be spent compiling a list of reasons the US should stay in the UN.

          Here’s my list:

          .

          1. good point

  23. Lack of artistic talent precludes me rendering a picture of Big Mo in the back of a squad car, with the cops holding his cell phone, and one cop saying to the other – “get this, he claims the picture of the naked nine year old was just his wife sexting him. . .”

    1. Submit that for Friday Funnies. (The lack of artistic talent is not necessarily a deal breaker for publication.)

      1. In order for the audience to know who it is the image should be blackd out except for the top of a turban and a little small label stating “self censored”.

  24. Even better than basil.

    Fuck that. Nothing is better than sweet basil, and i say this as a dude who loves cilantro and puts it in pretty much everything.

    Second best is Thai basil. THEN cilantro. Don’t make me fatwa your ass for dissing basil, yo.

    1. Will no one stand up for sage, rosemary and thyme?

  25. I agree. Savages like these are spoiling for a fight and eventually they will get one.

    I think the united states is fine though, our muslim population is relatively small, tends to think of themselves as American first and muslim second (at least compared to european muslims), have pretty substantial religious freedom when compared to europe, and are very well integrated as well.

  26. Seen this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

    (It takes a while to get there, but it does get there.)

    1. I know so many people who just have a hard time condemning these sorts of people because they so take for granted a secular and inclusive society that they simply cannot wrap their head around what these fanatics are about, what they are saying and why they are saying.

      Then they see people they dislike (ie conservatives and/or nationalists) as the only standard bearers against this type of culture and just assume racism by association.

      The Enlightenment is under attack by religious fanatics everywhere in the world and those who are supposed to be defending it, the intellectual elite, are so partisan, cowardly and brainwashed that they have no capacity to defend what is good anymore.

      1. I see the Keynsians as a bigger danger than religious fanatics. But lets say we agree that religous fanatics are a bigger problem…what would be a decent first step in attacking the problem? bomb Iran? sanctions on the Mid-east

        1. while the keynesians are a huge threat, even if the economy collapses there is no reason to believe that would effect free speech/expression. we do not need to resort to violence, except in self defense. I support changing their minds through philosophy and by example. the goal should be to convince people to abandon their religion and embrace human rights, reason, science, liberty, and freedom. islam may or may not be here to stay, but we can at least try to convince its followers that its a hateful sham. and with any luck islam will go into a perpetual spiral of losing followers, just as the number of members of the christian church and other organized religions are dwindling but atheism, agnosticism, and non-organized religion rises in the US. isolationism isn’t the answer, we should open up trade with Iran and other islamic countries, this will not only help our economy, but it will also help to spread ideas of change, freedom, etc.

          1. Well we agree on that then…free trade with Iran and the rest of the mid-east.

            It would be more productive to drop bacon and honey smoked hams on the mid east than bombs.

  27. Just itchin’ for another earthquake, huh?

  28. Oh come on. Here I was liking Reason and now some douchebag by the name of Michael C. Moynihan has to jump on the hate-speech bandwagon. I’m unfollowing you on Twitter. Goodbye.

    1. yeah how dare people question religion! burn the witch!

    2. Hate speech is the exactly what a hater SHOULD be engaging in.

      It’s the hate-beatings, the hate-arson, and the hate-fatwas that I object to.

  29. I could see more of a case for Lars not showing the film if he was out in public trying to force muslims to watch it… but this was a screening held in a room that people chose to attend. If they didn’t like the material, they could have simply left or protested it outside.

    In a free secular society, you are given religious freedom with the caveat that you can’t infringe on the rights of others even if your religion justifies it.

    1. And they knew who he was, right? So basically they showed up specifically planning to be outraged.

      It would be like me going to a Taylor Swift concert. What possible reason would I have for going unless I really WANTED to be offended (in this case, by awful awful music.)

      1. Right on all counts. It’s like me becoming violent at a Nickelback concert. Why did I come if I knew it would piss me off?

        1. Why does anyone watch c-span?

          1. They don’t.

  30. Here is Mohammed in a sad state of mind due to his irate followers elevating his memory to post-modern cult status and forgetting the 5 Pillars of Islam.
    🙁

  31. Let’s see…..Muslims in Sweden are having children at 4 times the rate of natural born Swedes, so I’d say Sweden has about 20 years to go until the Muslims are in the majority. Is that about right?

    1. right… oh no wait, wrong. it is possible to be a “natural born” swedish muslim, remember. seeing how “natural born” could only possibly mean someone born there (stop me if I’ve misunderstood you), and by that logic if a person who believes in islam moves to sweden and has children born there then those children are “natural born” AND muslim. in the end it will be the way it is today, most people who live in sweden are just people who live in sweden (this applies to all countries, try it with your own!) even though they might have different religious or political beliefs. the world and it’s population evolves you see. it’s ridiculous to try and define the people of sweden as anything else than just the people of sweden. much like the world itself. that right baby, we’re all just people – different, AND the same.

      1. His point is that Sweden will eventually be a muslim country and therefore will end up in squalor. You can’t be very productive when you’re praying five times a day and declaring jihad 20 times a day.

        1. Leaving aside your silly jihad remark…Islam was the most advanced civilization west of the Indian Ocean for a period three times as long as the age of the United States — while Europeans were busy burning each other at the stake and fighting wars over whether bread becomes flesh.

        2. and my point is that even with centuries of immigration behind it, sweden has not become a nation of religious idiots, and there’s no reason to suspect it ever will.

  32. Momo Juniad|5.16.10 @ 7:19AM|#

    I really love Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM. I really be honest that if I have mean to kill anyone who draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM, I won’t do it .I will first talk to the person, I will tell the person why one shouldn’t do this. I am doing it; I am practicing my rights to tell you that according to my belief what you are doing is not right by all and every mean.
    first thing that I am amazed about it that whatever you draw good or bad that hasn’t any resemblance to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM. Whatever been drawn and whatever will be drawn doesn’t have any resemblance to Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon Him.The good or bad whatever you or anyone else will draw or had had been drawn is just a reflection of his own self. In the first place I am right to tell you and others that draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM is wrong not because its Muslims belief not to draw but also you are drawing false images and wrong fully getting attention that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM is drawn.
    Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM forgave HIS worst enemies. The people of Makah from where HE started HIS preaching for Islam had opposed HIM by all and every way. They tortured HIM physically like throwing nailed bushes on HIS way; they socially and economically boycotted HIM and HIS whole tribe. When HE conquered Makah and all the people of Makah gathered in the Ka’aba HE asked from then what do you all accept from me that what I will do to you? They said you are a noble person and son of a noble person. He said to them I forgive you all .Makah was conquered without any bloodshed. Among these people a lady is present who hired a black slave to kill the Prophet Muhammad’s peace be upon HIM uncle Hamzah who was very beloved to HIM. That lady name Hinda wife of Abu Sufyan asked to that slave to kill Hamzah with a poisonous knife and then she took out his liver and tried to eat it but couldn’t and throws it out. Then she slaughtered his ears and nose. She was also forgiven Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him and he just asked from her not to come in front of HIM. Because she reminded Him how His uncle was slaughtered
    IN the time of His preaching in Makah HE went to a neighboring city Taif to preach them. They also opposed Him, didn’t listened to Him even they asked the small children in streets to throw stones on Him and go after Him call Him insane. He walked out of that city and on the out skirts of the city sat in a fruit garden there ALLAH almighty send angel Jibraiel (Gabriel) and he asked from Him that ALLAH almighty said if you want I will destroy this city in between these two mountains around its surroundings. He said I hope there will be believers among their children in the next generations.
    These are just two or three examples of how He behaved with His worst enemies. His life is full of these examples.
    There are certain things allowed and not allowed in different religion is a really vast subject. As I think you may know this pork meat is completely forbidden in Islamic law and it’s a part of everyday food in west, Muslims never asked from any person who is non Muslim to not to eat it and like this there are many examples.
    it’s not just what’s allowed or forbidden its love for our Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him. He is our Prophet. We love Him so much that for love and respect we didn’t like to say his name even.
    I don’t think so that first anyone threaten the person who draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him he draw that and after it all started.
    So my points are these
    1. Whatever you draw good or bad didn’t have any resemblance to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him.
    2. Whatever you will draw will not be anything like Him.
    3. The good or bad whatever you draw is your own reflection.
    4. You falsely claiming that you draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him. So you are misguiding others.
    5. We love our Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him more than our parents, more than our children, more than our selves. What you are trying is simply showing that you have problem that why we love our Prophet this much. You don’t love anyone this much so you all don’t understand it at all.
    6. i am using my rights to tell you to stop abusing my believes, to stop abusing a religion, to stop abusing humanity and to stop abusing human rights and freedom of speech.
    7. in the name of freedom of speech and rights you are dividing world. Religious people and people who hates religion.
    the cartoons are not just images.The modern meaning refers to both humorous illustrations in print and animated films.
    why on the frist place you want to draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him and second thing you want to draw in insulting manners.

    You really know that what is the problem west has with Islam.
    To become a Muslim one should say that I believe and testify in oneness of ALLAH al mighty and the prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him is the last messenger of ALLAH almighty .When one say this and embrace Islam then Islam is a manifesto to live the life.
    Islam is like a circle drawn by ALLAH almighty.
    I am sure you heard the story of Adam and Eve. As to Islamic version after creating Adam and Eve Allah almighty asked them to live in Eden and told them they can eat whatever they want and like except one tree’s fruit was forbidden for them.
    Islam is the continuity of it. ALLAH almighty send us in the world and with Islam told us which fruits we can eat and which are forbidden.
    Now in west human intelligence is their lord and driven force. In Islam ALLAH almighty can tell which fruits human can have and which are forbidden because He is the creator and All Knower.
    West wants that Islam changes itself. May be many Muslims also think so. My fellow human being Mr. Ian it may be sounds rigidness to you but nor any Muslim scholar neither any common Muslim can change what ALLAH almighty told.
    Yes of course Muslims are dealing with modern life challenges and Muslim scholars are guiding and showing the way in this modern world but whatever they are guiding is just according to the Quran and the life of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him.
    We have Quran as it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him and Life of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him is also recorded and written with great research and care that any false or lie cannot infiltrate in it.
    So Mr. Ian I think west needs to be tolerant and understanding that Islam cannot and will not change as west wants. It is not any work of human intelligence so any more intelligent and clever person will made changes in it.
    These cartoonist and writers are also part of it. To insult Islam and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him.
    In everyday life Muslims live life as they want, many Muslims made changes in their everyday life’s do’s n do not’s as they want. But still majority of Muslims are living their life as Quran and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him guides us.
    Even if majority of Muslims want that Islam also adopt changes like any other religion it cannot happen. ALLAH almighty himself can tell to change this and keep this.
    West needs to understand this and stop trying to change Islam and Muslims.
    and these young muslims were heros when they were fighting in afghanistan against russia and america was supporting them funding them facilitating them with equipment and money.

    1. Wow. just… wow.

    2. Anyone ever noticed how closely all the head bobbing that Muslims do resembles autistic head-banging?

    3. Will somebody please respond to this guy intelligently, point for point? All I can come up with is “Fuck you! you ignorant pre-medieval fucktard!” and that is certainly not helping things…
      Here’s an emoticon of Mohammed with my cock in his mouth after I rubbed bacon grease all over it and bouncing my balls on his child molesting chin:

        1. Wow, is Reason censoring :-O C=oo emoticons of Mohammad sucking my organ?

          1. Apparently not. Good for you! Reason.com!

    4. Living in a secular Western society automatically makes you open to dissent, criticism and yes even ridicule. To live in such a society, YOU must be tolerant of others who may decide to ridicule your beliefs.

      You are also free to demonstrate and make your own videos ridiculing Western culture, and those expressions should also be protected as free speech.

      Fundamentalist interpretations of religions are inherently incompatible with Western societies, because they revolve around imposing one’s religious beliefs and practices on others.

    5. I really be honest that if I have mean to kill anyone who draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon HIM, I won’t do it .

      OK, well that’s a start.

      I will first talk to the person, I will tell the person why one shouldn’t do this. I am doing it; I am practicing my rights to tell you that according to my belief what you are doing is not right by all and every mean.

      Fine, and I will offer a counter-argument showing why it is not wrong.

      That lady name Hinda wife of Abu Sufyan asked to that slave to kill Hamzah with a poisonous knife and then she took out his liver and tried to eat it but couldn’t and throws it out.

      Did she also have a side dish of fava beans and a nice chianti?

      IN the time of His preaching in Makah HE went to a neighboring city Taif to preach them. They also opposed Him, didn’t listened to Him even they asked the small children in streets to throw stones on Him and go after Him call Him insane.

      That’s one thing that bugs me about this allegedly existent Allah guy. If he wants us to believe he exists, why doesn’t he just reveal himself to all of us, instead of choosing only one person to receive his message and requiring everyone else to take that guy’s word for it. The stone throwing was a bit excessive, but I would call him crazy also if I were a resident of Taif. That is the most rational conclusion to draw if someone is walking around saying “I am the prophet Mohammed, peace be upon me; and Allah, the Creator of the Universe, wants me to give you an eternal message about how you should live.”

      To address your points:

      1. Whatever you draw good or bad didn’t have any resemblance to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him.
      2. Whatever you will draw will not be anything like Him.

      Very well. I don’t know what the historical Mohammed looked like, so if I draw a picture, I will put a disclaimer on it that states that the drawing does not necessarily contain an accurate representation of Mohammed’s face (of course a reasonably astute observer would understand that already). That way nobody will be confused. However, the guy did have to look like something, so it is at least possible that someone will draw an accurate picture.

      3. The good or bad whatever you draw is your own reflection.

      It is? Only in the sense that anything I do is a reflection of me. But that doesn’t mean there is something wrong with drawing the “prophet”

      4. You falsely claiming that you draw Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him. So you are misguiding others.

      See my reply to 1 and 2.

      5. We love our Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him more than our parents, more than our children, more than our selves. What you are trying is simply showing that you have problem that why we love our Prophet this much. You don’t love anyone this much so you all don’t understand it at all.

      Ummm, yeah. Well that’s your business. But it has nothing to do with the fact that I have a right to depict Mohammed. And it does not provide a rational reason for thinking it is wrong to do so.

      6. i am using my rights to tell you to stop abusing my believes, to stop abusing a religion, to stop abusing humanity and to stop abusing human rights and freedom of speech.

      Freedom of thought and speech include the right to criticize all ideas, including religious ideas and religion in general. It is not a violation of your rights to criticize, or even ridicule, your beliefs.

      the name of freedom of speech and rights you are dividing world. Religious people and people who hates religion.

      More precisely, this issue divides the world into those who think rational scrutiny of religious ideas and taboos should be prohibited, and those who think there should be freedom of inquiry in this area. It is important for the future of humanity that the later win out.

  33. Hey thanks for posting this, I hadn’t seen it. Also, you guys know that hating on somebody else for whatever reason isn’t gonna make things better right? Good, just checking. Peace out!

    1. its hating the haters, we need to defend free speech and stand up to these nuts. people must be free to criticize religion and to blaspheme. the more we stand up to these people the better things will be for free speech, when they realize they cannot silence their critics.

    2. “Also, you guys know that hating on somebody else for whatever reason isn’t gonna make things better right?”

      I’m sure you say that to all the people who talk smack about your buddies in the Klan, right?

      1. read it again, cynical… especially the part where it says “for whatever reason”. sort of includes any form of racism, wouldn’t you agree?
        but you have a nice day buddy, and good luck in school today!

  34. Wow did you see that guy pull that woman back, as she gets close to the announcer.
    Look I don’t care, and nor should anyone, what your faith is but leave my freedom of speech alone. The freedom of speech allows you to exist, it allows me to exist without fear when you take that from one individual (or group) you take it from all.

    1. I will take your freedom of speech from you along with your tongue, infidel!

  35. I gotta picture of Mohammed RIGHT HEEEERRRRE.

  36. ====D O

    look its an ASCII pic of mohammads mouth about to be sodomized!

  37. Fucking Hajis… We should have told the cops to leave and called in a airstrike

  38. this isn’t something that comes down to freedom of speach. when are we going to stop pushing boundaries for the sake of pushing boundaries. no one has a NEED to make an illustration of the prophet, its called respect. he did it because he believes they dont have a right to have that specific religious belief respected, since there’s an extremist population. which oh yeah, “lets piss off the terrorists more” thats smart too =/

    1. J Lansky,

      Ah… they’re like threatening to kill people and headbutting people. What are you failing to understand about this. They’re not only disrespecting us with their “you can’t say that” medievalism, but they’re killing people and threatening violence.

      Not cool and this dude will not abide.

  39. You know, this is a rare example to be found on this site of a situation in which government is both necessary and critical to the preservation of an individual’s “rights.” Though that was not your intention; well done Reason.

    1. …a situation in which government is both necessary and critical to the preservation of an individual’s “rights.”

      Unless of course that government is enforcing sharia law.

      I don’t see the Swedish government doing anything other than attempting to equate physical assailants with their victim.

      Lots of hate crime legislation – but only for specific groups of people. The appearance of PC is more important than individual rights to most governments.

      Don’t expect to see any free speech legislation that would actually protect Vilks’ ability for self expression.

      The victim has become a prisoner in his own guarded house, for simply expressing an opinion – while you crow about the wonderful ‘government’ that protects his rights.

  40. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  41. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  42. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  43. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  44. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  45. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  46. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  47. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  48. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  49. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  50. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  51. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  52. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  53. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  54. FUCK MUHOMMADD HE IS A GAY PIG RAPING FECES EATING, DICK SUCKING,,,, BUTT FUCKING FAGGOTT AND IM GLAD HE DIED OF AIDS AND INVENTED SEX WITH ANIMALS

  55. MUHOMMADD HAD 4 FEMALE CHILDREN WITH HIS WIFE A JEW NAMED ANNE FRANK. THEY WERE SWINGERS AND ALSO HAD 2 MALE PARTNERS THAT LIVED WITH THEM NAMED JESUS AND CHARLIE SHEEN. THEY HAD WILD ORGIES TOGETHER AND MUHOMMADD LOVED BEING RAMMED IN THE ASS BY CHARLIE SHEEN WHILE LICKING JESUS’ HAIRY ASSHOLE. MUHOMMADD SOON CONTRACTED AIDS AFTER HE AND CHARLIE SHEEN HAD ANAL SEX WITH A PIG THEY NAMED OSAMA BIN LADEN. THEY DID WENT TO MECCA AND MUHOMMADD BLEW A LOAD ALL OVER THE WALLS OF THE GAY ROCK THEY WORSHIP THT FELL FROM THE PLANET FAGGOTT ,,, WHICH IS MUHOMMAADDS HOME PLANET. EVERY ONE ON THE PLANET FAGGOT IS BORN WITH MULTIPLE ASSHOLES AND TINY PENIS’ JUST LIKE MUHOMMADD. MUHOMMADD AND HIS JEW WIFE AND 2 BOYRFRIENDS ,, JESUS AND CHARLIE SHEEN ALL DIED OF AIDS AND LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER

  56. This is exactly — exactly — how I feel about the show, “Little Miss Perfect”.

  57. Ignore people like Tulpa. They have no idea how Muslims behave when their religion is challenged the world over. Offending people likely to murder you is exactly the sort of cutting-edge free speech activism that people should indulge in.

    Did you know Mohammad himself ordered a satirist Arab poet to be killed when he mocked him?

    Muslims do not belive in free speech collectively. Some individuals might, but you will not see many Muslims stand up for this liberal value. Not in India, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, UK, US…anywhere.

    Its our duty to offend the bejeesus out of these medieval murderous fucktards.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.