No we don't. According to the Bible Jesus is the only way to the Christian God. Unless you believe Jesus is the son of God and is also God in the trinity we are not serving the same God.our god?
man shut the fukk up.
muslims, christians and jews all share the same god.
Don't speak about shyt you CLEARLY kno fukk all about nikka.
charlie hebdo is a fukkboi
- Thread starter TheBeigeBomber
- Start date
RealAssanova
Vagitarian
man shyt the fukk up and choke on my flaccid circumcised d!ck.
tell your fukkin president to stay the fukk outta muslim countries. Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld should all be in jail for life for crimes against humanity. Western democracies think they can meddle in other countries affairs in the name of democracy, bomb, mame, torture and rape thousands of people and then cry when this type of shyt happens on their own soil?
RealAssanova
Vagitarian
how the hell can jesus be the son of god? did god have sex?
but lemme ask you this....if you think allah should punish those that insult islam, then surely the "Christian god" should punish those that insult/defy christianity right?
Entropy Fan
Superstar
so its ok to be offended under circumstances you see fit. Pathetic. You can do better.in that case the people would be getting offended over real, disgusting events.
not some fake man in the sky who gets offended when he's drawn. weak comparison imo.
a better comparison would be people shooting up mad magazine for spoofing a harry potter book
You cant tell people's what ok to be offended by, drop the God complex white boy.
Is it ok for someone to respond violently to a magazine that draws blacks as chimps, makes light of slavery, and shows blacks hanging in a manner meant to amuse? Is all that ok? Would you defend their right to free speech. I would like an answer and not a pathetic deflection or a dodge
Good I thought so...we are not serving the same God.how the hell can jesus be the son of god? did god have sex?
but lemme ask you this....if you think allah should punish those that insult islam, then surely the "Christian god" should punish those that insult/defy christianity right?
So don't you even try to push tat bullshyt narrative the next time.
We Christians believe God will deal with those who mock him AT HIS OWN TIME. We don't shoot up the place like you Muslims.
If you worship a God who wants human to avenge for him, you may want to consider your religion.
God is too big and powerful to need man to do his bidding
Motherfukkers are trying to make extremists tolerant. Unbelievable.
Probably the same type of people asking for people to stop being gay.
the cac mamba
Banned
Motherfukkers are trying to make extremists tolerant. Unbelievable.
Probably the same type of people asking for people to stop being gay.
People can change if they really want to
JohnStarksMiddleFinger
Benz L. Bo$$ington
They are making MAD Magazine look like a bytch
the cac mamba
Banned
im saying it's ok to be offended by real things, drop the bullshyt you know what the fukk im talking aboutim not singling out islam, they're just the topic of this thread, and easily the most insecure religion on the planet in 2015
cultures that wont let females go to the store without a male relative
no wonder these fags get offended by cartoonsand if you want a direct answer to your question, that isnt a comparable drawing because that's real and tangible. allah is fake
the cac mamba
Banned
i agree
MouseTeeth
All Star
Yep but you know how that goes
There are no such thing as free speech over here.....
unless it fits their agenda
Basically, u have free speech until u offend the wrong ppl
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-465570/I-fanatic--I-know-thinking-says-radical-Islamist.htmlPeople can change if they really want to
I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist
By HASSAN BUTT
Last updated at 07:38 02 July 2007
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.
More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
The attempts to cause mass destruction in London and Glasgow are so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that they are likely to have been carried out by my former peers.
And as with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy.
For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today programme, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."
I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers. But if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again.
Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the July 7 bombings, and I were both part of the network - I met him on two occasions.
And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.
If we were interested in justice, you may ask, how did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting such a (flawed) Utopian goal?
How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion?
There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.
Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.
For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).
Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.
Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.
In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.
The notion of a global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain.
For decades, radicals have been exploiting the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state - typically by starting debate with the question: "Are you British or Muslim?"
But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology.
They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever - and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away.
This has left the territory open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, I repeatedly came across those who had tried to raise these issues with mosque authorities only to be banned from their grounds.
Every time this happened it felt like a moral and religious victory for us because it served as a recruiting sergeant for extremism.
Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism.
A handful of scholars from the Middle East have tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised so long ago by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion.
In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.
But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me as a far more potent argument because it involves recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.
The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief.
For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here.
But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.
However, it isn't enough for responsible Muslims to say that, because they feel at home in Britain, they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers.
Because so many in the Muslim community refuse to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day.
I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism.
Crucially, the Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from its state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.
If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence.
And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.