I agree with the concept here, but I think he is overstating it a bit. Actively selling out your own people/family while slavery was actively occurring is rather worse than forgetting (or never learning) that your religion was used as a tenuous justification for slavery many many generations ago.

On the other hand, a more contemporary spinoff of this that lends further weight to the argument can be found in the widespread apprehension amongst whites back in the 60's and 70's that all or most of the African American population would convert to Islam. A lot of writings by prominent white people of that era show just how terrifying that prospect was for them, and many candidly justified that fear by saying that it would reduce or eliminate the level of control that whites had over the black population. Pretty disgusting stuff to read from a modern point of view.

Actually, I'm fairly surprised that wave petered out as quickly as it did. Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, and others brought the trend of blacks converting to Islam into national attention; but it didn't gain as much traction as many whites of the time feared. It would be interesting to see a study into the whys of that -- my best (yet unfortunately rather stereotype-based) guess is that many single-parent or head-of-household African American mothers were reluctant to let their sons convert from their family's traditional Christian upbringing and suppressed or quashed a lot of the momentum of the movement in its early stages.

Racist idiot baits fundamentalist idiots, and the world keeps getting slightly worse...

Also @artician, no, this isn't a mock-up. Vilks was invited to hold a lecture on freedom of speech at Uppsala university, and to illustrate that he chose to show part of Sooreh Hera's photo series 'Allah ho gaybar'. Since everybody knew he was a racist asshole who deliberately wanted to provoke Muslims, a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims who wanted to be deliberately provoked showed up at his lecture. Idiots met idiot, and combusted.

Oh and since he'd been getting death threats for his previous hijinks (depicting the prophet Muhammad as a dog), the cops were on hand for this occasion.

Tremendous amount of ignorance in here; not the faggoty liberal 'being a meanie' ignorance, but the dictionary definition 'you don't know what the fuck you're talking about' ignorance.

There's very little room for multiple interpretations of Islam. The Qur'an was written by a single (insane) author; with clear instructions on how to interpret it - literally; and how to resolve any inconsistencies within the text - the chronologically later passage supercedes the earlier.

The various Islamic sects differ over the authenticity of the Hadith, accounts of Momo's opinions and behaviour, which they are expected to emulate. None of them dispute the authority or the text of the Qur'an, which they imagine to be the infallible word of god.

There are peaceful, conciliatory passages in the Qur'an; which generally date from early in Muhammad's career, when he wasn't so secure in his position that he could afford to be a total cunt to non-believers. There are violent, xenophobic passages in the Qur'an; which generally date from later in Muhammad's career, when his success as a warlord left him far better placed to be a total cunt to non-believers. The chronologically later passages supercede the earlier.

The favorite example is At-Tawbah 5, the 'Verse of the Sword'; from the chronologically penultimate surah of the Qur'an it scrubs out any earlier peaceful passages by commanding that Muslims:

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"

THIS IS WHAT ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE

There's a peculiar general tendency to conflate the violent historical practice of other religions, like Christianity, with the actual scriptural commandment to violence of Islam. These are not equivalent. In any case the big M positioned Islam as a continuation and successor of Christianity and Judaism, admitting the validity of their prophets and texts, so it has to inherit their crimes as well.

Ultimately, all the religious are criminals. In abandoning reason and responsibility for their own actions, in turning over their volition to the dictates of invisible spirits, they have disposed of ethics and their own humanity.

curious if there's any remaining footage of Elijah Muhammad

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

When I was around 9 in 1978, I met Muhammad Ali. I shook his hand in a restaurant called the Evergreen in Delta Junction, Alaska. He was in town to shoot a battery commercial.

Perhaps you've never studied the history of the region, but the reason I haven't addressed your questions is because I reject the central premise, which is the notion of a distinct "Palestinian" people. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. There never has been any people in history going by that name, or demanding a country of their own. There is no Palestinian culture, artifacts..nothing The fact is, there is no actual difference between Palestinians, Jordanians, and Syrians. Before I go into it, you can hear it straight from the horses mouth:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Zuheir Mohsen leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.

James Dorsey, "Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden", Trouw, 31 March 1977.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen

They aren't struggling for "independence", they are waging all out war against the Jews. The "Palestinians" have been offered their own state many, many times, with the initial deal being something like 80 percent of the entire country. They rejected it and vowed to exterminate the Jews. They are not interested in negotiating because they want to wipe any Jewish presence in the region off of the map. They're also being funded and supplied by Arab nations all over the Middle East for this purpose. Why? Because Muslims are raised to hate Jews and this stems from the Qur'an. It probably goes back to when the Jews rejected Muhammad as a prophet.

Please research the history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY&feature=related

I'd love to hear what he says.

Thanks for running this down.

In reply to this comment by Rambaldi:
It's standard practice in news broadcasts - and *usually* it's not a bad thing, when it's irrelevant whether the broadcast is live or not. I'm not entirely sure about this, so I actually went and found the Israeli guy they interviewed on the Internet and I'm waiting to hear from him.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
But but but...

It was from the broadcast that you knew it wasn't live, that is was recorded. Are you assuming that she didn't talk to the guys? I think she talked to the guys. What makes you think someone else interviewed them?

So I don't get it. It is just a presentation of an interview, and luck had it that something interesting happened during it.

(I'm not offended in the least. I was afraid I was going to offend you!)


In reply to this comment by Rambaldi:
@bareboards2 -
Misrepresenting the timing is a distortion of the facts - that would mean Muhammad was not in direct conversation with the news anchor.
I agree presenting two sides of the conflict would be admirable, and I'm glad it came through to you this way.

However, when one side gets bombarded during the interview, some people would find it very hard to see both sides of the conflict, an effect that increases when the interview appears to be presented live.
Even if CNN did this to draw eyes to the interview, it creates unfair bias, and the editorial decision to air it like this does not suggest the intention was to show both sides of the conflict.

I'm agnostic BTW. I get why the timing affects people of faith that way, I just wish it didn't. I hope me saying this does not offend you in any way.

But but but...

It was from the broadcast that you knew it wasn't live, that is was recorded. Are you assuming that she didn't talk to the guys? I think she talked to the guys. What makes you think someone else interviewed them?

So I don't get it. It is just a presentation of an interview, and luck had it that something interesting happened during it.

(I'm not offended in the least. I was afraid I was going to offend you!)


In reply to this comment by Rambaldi:
@bareboards2 -
Misrepresenting the timing is a distortion of the facts - that would mean Muhammad was not in direct conversation with the news anchor.
I agree presenting two sides of the conflict would be admirable, and I'm glad it came through to you this way.

However, when one side gets bombarded during the interview, some people would find it very hard to see both sides of the conflict, an effect that increases when the interview appears to be presented live.
Even if CNN did this to draw eyes to the interview, it creates unfair bias, and the editorial decision to air it like this does not suggest the intention was to show both sides of the conflict.

I'm agnostic BTW. I get why the timing affects people of faith that way, I just wish it didn't. I hope me saying this does not offend you in any way.

@bareboards2 -
Misrepresenting the timing is a distortion of the facts - that would mean Muhammad was not in direct conversation with the news anchor.
I agree presenting two sides of the conflict would be admirable, and I'm glad it came through to you this way.

However, when one side gets bombarded during the interview, some people would find it very hard to see both sides of the conflict, an effect that increases when the interview appears to be presented live.
Even if CNN did this to draw eyes to the interview, it creates unfair bias, and the editorial decision to air it like this does not suggest the intention was to show both sides of the conflict.

I'm agnostic BTW. I get why the timing affects people of faith that way, I just wish it didn't. I hope me saying this does not offend you in any way.

(The usual disclaimer - I'm from Israel).

Just a thought - is the interview live? Because at the beginning of the interview, the News anchor says "About two hours ago, we were able to reach Muhammad Suliman..."
She than says: "I started by asking Muhammad to describe the situation...". When the bombing starts, however, the context seems to be that this is live material - she asks Muhammad about the bombings and even repeats the question.

News shows do this all the time - record and edit interviews to appear in sync with the correspondent's questions. And that doesn't mean Gaza wasn't actually bombarded when the interview was conducted. However *if* the material was pre-recorded, that means CNN knew - in advance - that this happens during the interview. Giving the impression it was live is not very even handed.

He looks so like Muhammad Ali!

You are right. The issue here is tact. Does this guy have enough political savy, forethought and intelligence to be the leader and spokesman for what is still the only real super-power left in the world?

Look at how he described the Israel/Palestine conflict. What hope could anyone have for an impartial resolution with him leading the discussion? Look at what a stupid film can do to stability in the Middle East. Imagine having Magic-Pants here at the helm talking about Islam and Muhammad. >> ^Drachen_Jager:

This is like the argument, "Well the Nazis did X, therefore X is bad."
Whoever posted this, and whoever agrees with the sentiment, you're just wrong. There's a lot about Romney to be concerned with.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bill maher, islam, south park, muhammad bear suit, controversy' to 'bill maher, islam, south park, muhammad bear suit, controversy, new rules' - edited by xxovercastxx

Peter Schiff was also 100% correct about the 2008 crash, but that still doesn't exonerate him as being a complete tool. i do not care for these examples of suitability for office due to correlation, correlation is not causation, and these attempts at power of authority figures to garner support for his cause is just appalling - just because a veteran says it does not make it a fact (& they are trained to follow order, not be free-thinkers) to me the true patriots shun military service 'Think of Muhammad Ali' when he so famously stated (No Vietnamese person ever called me nigger).

Paul may be right about wanting to bring the troops home, but he is very wrong about more broader issues & before of the cultists ask me for what those are read my older posts on my profile, i don't feel like repeating myself to people who close their ears & their minds.

hey, @blankfist... Muhammad maaan!!!!