1. 5 Billion Muslims have their feelings hurt

-twitter

-twitter

A record 3 million copies of the new edition of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo have appeared on French newsstands, with new caricatures triggering outrage among Muslims all over the world, and threats from radical Islamists.

British radical preacher Anjem Choudary, who is allegedly connected with armed militant groups, decried the new edition as an “act of war” and a “blatant provocation.”

Many mainstream Muslim organizations also reacted by saying that the mere depiction of the prophet is a sacrilege: Egypt’s Islamic body Dar al-Ifta branded the publication “an unjustified provocation against the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims,”

-AFP

Unjustified provocation? Unjustified? They get slaughtered in the name of Islam and retaliate with what? Violence? No. Murder? No. They mock those who massacred them and bravely show that they will not be silenced and that freedom of speech is a cornerstone of any democracy, no matter how many sensitive petals get their widdle feelings hurt.

Who do they think that they are kidding really? This is not about hurt feelings this is about domination. Islam wants to turn the west into a puppet that it controls. Charlie Hebdo have defiantly cut the strings and given them the finger. I support them 100%. No more, no more. Islam does not get to terrorise us into silence, because the day they succeed is the day that all our rights and privileges in our democracies end.

Many mainstream ( in other words moderate ) Muslims have said that the mere depiction of the prophet is a sacrilege.

Hang on one cotton picking minute. When did France become an Islamic state under Sharia law? Only under Sharia law is the depiction a sacrilege. Only if you are a Muslim is it sacrilege. The cartoonists are not Muslim.

Other religions equate sacrilege with breaking a moral and ethical code such as rape or murder or pedophilia. These are moral and ethical lines that most religions, faiths and non religious beliefs have in common. Only Islam refers to dogma or man made rules as things that are sacrilege to break. Think about this for one minute. Drawing a picture of Muhammad is sacrilege, marrying and having sex with a nine year old is not.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • fergus

    Not to give them any ideas…but ISIS should buy shares in Charlie Hebdo. The more they rant the higher the profits.

  • Karma

    I’m assuming it’s only the males that are offended since the females are brought up to be breeders not readers.

    • The females will be offended if they are told to be offended and as they don’t appear to have any say in any other part of their lives I guess that means they will be offended.

  • Mrs_R

    Well written SB. Your outrage and conviction is almost palpable when reading your words. They clearly think we in the west must respect and obey them- ah, nope, we don’t.

    • JustanObserver

      Respect is earned ….
      And they ain’t done that !

  • Isherman

    The Iranians seem to think Charlie Hebdo is a purely Jewish publication..just look at how they chose to respond, not against CH or France, but Jews in particular.

    https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesofisrael.com%2Firanians-to-host-holocaust-cartoon-contest%2F&ei=TP3PVKwp1vHyBcn9gvAJ&usg=AFQjCNFma11ti1x6WOaAWZ5Y77n8myWy0A

  • ….. that the mere depiction of the prophet is a sacrilege.

    Nope, it is Islam that is the abomination!

  • tinfoilhatguy

    Islam is like a spoiled child having a tantrum – if it doesn’t get it’s way it spits it’s dummy out and has a fit in the middle of the room. Grow up before you get a real spanking.

    • HR

      Except a spoiled child having a tantrum is not so likely to murder a whole lot of people as a result. I would love to see these Islamic terrorists to start getting a real spanking too.

  • Eiselmann

    A heartfelt apology to Muslims
    Dear Muslims of the world I am sorry you are offended because there are people who question Islam as the religion of peace when we go ahead and point to 25000 random lone wolf attacks in the name of allah since 9-11 as a basis for questioning your claim as the religion of peace.
    I’m sorry people say your faith is evil , its the whole following a paedophile, mass murdering intolerant monster that gives us cause for concern
    I’m sorry we object to your women wearing burka’s and sharia laws that subjugate them..its just we’re really into human rights , womens rights and seeing our daughters succeed …its the whole girls can do anything mentality…..if you tried it you might get a lot more joy out of life rather than trying to kill your daughters when they don’t want to marry an old fart….
    But mostly I feel sorry for the 72 virgins ….and the goats you own.

  • steve and monique

    Boo hoo cupcakes. If you are going to get sand in your undies every time some one pokes fun at Allah, then stop acting like buttholes, stop killing,maiming, bombing, and immigrating, then we may loose interest in your cult, and its lunatic beliefs. Otherwise cant stand the heat, go back to your sandpit.

    • Forrest Ranger

      Especially immigrating

  • Benoni

    Charlie Hebdo has not committed sacrilege because Islam is a false religion started by an unbiblical prophet.

  • Kevin O’Brien

    We should have the guts to stomp on it here too. There have been attempts to convert inmates in NZ prisons.

  • Luis Cannon

    A world wide full on psychological war against Islam will do a lot more good that sending a few training troops to help the gutless untrainables. Limp wristed posturing before the Saudis should be at the top of the list for getting the chop. QE2 please note. When these creeps stop whinging about their hurt feelings will be the day they have won. Counter terrorism is a lot more than containment.

    • Kevin

      It needs to be a two-pronged attack. The first is to attack Islamists with all the weapons and tactics at our disposal. The other is to wage war against Islam itself. With regards to the former we’re clearly winning (when your enemy resorts to using women as cannon fodder and bombing civilian targets like newspaper offices then you’re winning). With regards to the latter it all depends on whether or not the MSM and leaders like Obama finally get the guts to call out Islam for what it is.

      What we need is another Ronald Reagan.

      • thehawkreturns

        Ronnie never used nukes. Muslims will.

  • oldmanNZ

    An Muslim threatens 5.6 Billion people with there “death to infidel chants”……

    we should look at these people feelings .

  • oozzey

    Any one who preaches hate against the western world should have their citizenship revoked and sent backto their home land.immediatly Ihave had a guts full of people from other countries who want to live in hidden communities .these so called citizens are not backward in coming forward for every benefit they have been told they are entitled too.Imust point out I am aiming at people from the middle east and certain parts of Africa

  • Bayman

    I think I may well be a lone voice here.

    Free speech is one thing. And the cornerstone of a free society as well.

    But going out of your way to purposely offend a section of the community to me isn’t free speech.

    Before you all go nuts at me – let me get this straight – in no way, shape or form do I endorse what happened in France and what is happening elsewhere. The people that carried out those atrocities got their just rewards. Now we need to go after ISIS as well.

    • wanarunna

      The problem is Bayman, there has to be a point where you you stand up to people. What happens when a section of the community say to you, Bayman, that the fact that you are alive and don’t believe in Allah, offends them. Do you still stand by your view that it is wrong to purposely offend them, or do you take one of the two logical options available to you, stop living or convert to Islam.
      The right to free speech must include the right to offend, because if it doesn’t, then it is not a right to free speech, but a right to say what other people want you to say, and that is no right at all.

      • Bayman

        Listen, I agree in principle completely. Well for the most part. Free speech is absolutely a mainstay of our way of life.

        However one could argue that what Charlie Hebdo are doing isn’t free speech at all and is rather an attempt to incite the targets of the cartoons. To me that isn’t what free speech is about.

        Standing up and saying Islam is wrong, it’s the complete opposite of a ‘religion of peace’ is one thing, these provocative cartoons something else completely.

        • SkeptiK

          The Charlie cartoons that I have seen don’t appear to be particularly disparaging or offensive at all – other than violating the “Thou shalt not draw a likeness of the prophet” tenet.

          Basically, you can’t criticize Islam IN ANY WAY without offending Islamists or committing blasphemy (punishable by death).

          So it’s COMPLETELY incompatible with any right to free speech.

          • Bayman

            Not to you, or to me no.

            But their clear intention is to provoke Muslims into a reaction. Nothing more and nothing less. And I just don’t like it.

            I don’t see that being free speech. Free speech to me is bout telling people you disagree with something. Breing able to protest things you disagree with. All things we take for granted. But going round saying it’s fine to provoke and incite a section of the community, nah I don’t buy it.

          • SkeptiK

            Now I can’t buy that. These guys drew the Prophet and some got slaughtered as a result. Now you say that the intention of the survivors is to provoke Muslims into a reaction, nothing more nothing less? So they are doing this in some sort of suicide attempt? No way. They continue to draw Mohammed because they believe in the right of free speech – about anything. And that satire has it’s place and that NOTHING is too sacred or important to be challenged and examined.

          • Bayman

            Of course it’s not a suicide attempt.

            What it is is a continued attempt to incite and provoke. Supposedly in the name of satire. And to me free speech doesn’t mean anything goes.

          • wanarunna

            maybe it is a continued attempt to incite and provoke. And I have no problem with that. Because what they are provoking is an ideology which is so contrary to the values I and most other westerners hold, that there is a duty to provoke and raise awareness. To do nothing, to surrender to someone else’s ideology is to let others rule your life. Forever.

          • Bayman

            Nicely put and a way of looking at it.

            For me if that’s all it was, then maybe ok. But I for one don’t believe for a minute that’s their intention.

            Their only intention is to purposefully incite one section of a community. Not to provoke a new way of thinking.

            And thanks for the intelligent discussion without resorting to silly quips, I like it :-)

          • wanarunna

            Your welcome. And you raise a point which I has often puzzled me, namely whether an action done or statement made which, when considered objectively, is not objectionable, can be considered objectionable because you do not agree with the intent behind the doing of the action or the making of the statement. I tend to the view that statements and actions should be divorced from the intent. I don’t go along with the view that many people take that “I don’t agree with what you have done because I don’t agree with why you did it”.

          • spanishbride

            I am comfortable with the idea that a by product of their Freedom of Speech is to provoke. I will give you an analogy
            ( cause I am really fond of them :)
            I tell my Dad that the family dog is dangerous as I saw him growling at my baby brother and I was bitten by him when I passed too close to his food dish. Dad doesn’t beleive me and thinks that I am exaggerating and that I must have provoked the dog in some way because he beleives that the dog is a safe family pet and that I am prejudiced because of its breed. I therefore put a plan into place because I am scared that if I do not convince my father my baby brother will end up horribly maimed or dead. Our previous family dog was a tolerant, gentle animal and would let me put my feet on him as he lay at our feet while we sat on the couch. As we watch T.V that night I put my feet onto the new family dog while my father is watching. The dog growls and nips my foot drawing blood. My Father is shocked but insists that I must have been rough with the dog. The next time I realise I have to provoke it into biting my father as he will not act unless I show him the danger. I ask my father to pass me a toy belonging to my baby brother that has fallen from his high chair next to the dog. My father goes to grab it and gets savagely bitten by the dog who reacts instantly. The next day the dog is put down.
            The moral of my story is that if we have to provoke Islam to reveal that it is not a religion of peace, then lets keep drawing Muhammad. It is not that I want to die, it is that I am wanting to protect future generations.

          • Odd Ball

            Your very last sentence says it all, game over, thanks for playing.

          • Bayman

            Ok….not sure what to make of that but thanks for contributing those 12 words to the debate.

          • SkeptiK

            That’s right, free speech means that I can say anything you like!

          • pak

            I think that is the essence of this whole argument!

          • spanishbride

            Then it is not free, it is controlled.

          • Grocersgirl

            I agree with Bayman on this. I’ve been trying to think up an example closer to home. How about if I drew a cartoon of, say, Mr Wannarunna’s lovely wife clearly depicting her as, say,a drunken bedraggled prostitute leaning on a lamppost. Then I delivered a copy of my cartoon to all the Wannarunnas’ neighbours. According to the proponents of totally free speech I’m entitled to do that. I suspect however that Mr Wannarunna might be offended by this. He might even be provoked sufficiently to come round to my house and beat me up for portraying his wife in this way. I think a lot of the neighbours would probably think he was justified in doing so, especially if Mrs Wannarunna was popular in the nieghbourhood.. They might even be able to not blame him too much if I died from the beating. But I was just using my right of free speech. (With apologies to Mrs Wannarunna)

          • Mrs_R

            Your scenario has several holes in it. Firstly, you assume that Mr Wannarunna’s wife isn’t a drunken bedraggled prostitute. Secondly, nobody is delivering anything to the neighbours. The fact is the neighbours take the initiative by purchasing the cartoon, hence they can’t complain if they don’t like what they knew they were getting. Finally Mr Wannarunna is probably only upset that now everyone knows the truth about Mrs Wannarunna – hypothetically. Also of note, if the above scenario was completely false and could be proved to be so, then the proper course of action to be taken by Mr or Mrs Wannarunna is a defamation case. Violence is never the answer.

        • wanarunna

          By agreeing not to draw cartoons of Mohammed, you are agreeing to live your life on their terms. There are certain principles that I believe everyone should live by, don’t kill, don’t rape, don’t steal, don’t lie etc. Don’t draw pictures of a seventh century merchant isn’t one of them.

    • Odd Ball

      I guess you have a problem with the catholic song in Monty Python’s ‘The meaning of life’ movie, then.

      • Bayman

        There’s a difference.

        Monty Python and their films/sketches aren’t purposefully provocative in their nature.

        • Odd Ball

          I disagree & I think you are dancing on a pin

          • Bayman

            And that’s your right of course, just as its mine to have an opinion that differs to the majority here.

          • Mrs_R

            You state that you have an opinion that differs from others and that’s your right – yet you would deny Charlie Hebdo the same right? The fact that you express your opinion by the written word and they do so by cartoon makes no difference. Whether something is ‘provocative’ or ‘offensive’ is subjective and therefore free speech does not, and should not, be governed by one parties decision on where that line is drawn. The only real difference here is how you respond when you are offended and how they do.

          • Rick H

            Rayman – herein is your folly.

            Naked people offend you.
            You no longer, if you ever did, visit a nudist colony.
            You don’t kill the nudists.

            Drunken idiots are not to your fancy.
            You no longer join in with “shots nights”.
            You don’t kill the schickered ones.

            Cartoonists draw a figure that could be anybody, but you believe it to be Muhammet / Muhammad; and that offends you.
            You no longer look at that artists cartoons.
            You don’t go and butcher them.

            If you don’t like somebody, don’t go to their place.

            It’s not rocket science.

        • SkeptiK

          What? Python not offensive? You are dreaming. I saw an interview recently where one of them said that the time must be right to retire the sketches as they were no longer considered offensive.

          But had they based Life of Brian on Mohammed rather than Jesus, the odds are that there would have been less of them around to make the farewell show!

          • Bayman

            I see provocative and offensive as two different things. Hence my choice of words

          • Odd Ball

            Semantics

          • Bayman

            Not really. You can offend without provoking.

            And that’s not what Hebdo do. Not in my opinion.

          • thehawkreturns

            Correct. Bayman screwed up that argument big time. Python was deliberately offensive and provocative and I would like to think that if they were around today they would nail the evil cult of Islam.

        • intelligentes candida diva

          Some of them were purposefully provocative, the difference is Catholics did not seek out and murder.

    • wanarunna

      Having re-read what I just posted, some elaboration is in order. I say there is a point where you have to stand up to people. I do not mean by this that there are some cases where free speech does not include the right to offend. I believe that free speech always includes the right to offend. I would agree that there are cases where, just because you have a right to say something, actually saying it may not be the best thing to do. But there are also cases where something must be said, whether it offends others or not.

      • Bayman

        And I agree wholeheartedly I really do.

        But do you really think Hebdo falls into that category? In fact any of those?

    • Kevin

      But were they going out of their way to offend a section of the community? For example I can attack Islam and point out things about it but does that mean I’m purposefully offending Muslims? You’d think that a religion like Islam, that claims to be infallible, would welcome critics.

      • Bayman

        Yes I think they we’re/are. And then hiding behind ‘hey we have free speech here I can say/print what the hell I like’

        Also I agree with you. In a perfect world Muslims should be able to take criticism and debate those issues but it seems they can’t. But really that’s another discussion.

      • thehawkreturns

        Islam is not a religion. There are some minor elements of this vile cult that one might suggest resemble a religion we can understand but no more than that.

    • spanishbride

      Free speech is the freedom to criticise, to hurt peoples feelings, to question belief systems, to disagree, to joke, to mock etc
      If my neighbours are offended by women who show cleavage do you seriously expect me to stop wearing my lovely summer dresses so that I will not offend them? They don’t have to look just as Muslims do not have to read or purchase Charlie Hebdo.

      Charlie Hebdo were always about satire. Islam is the ONLY target of their satire without a sense of humor or an acceptance that people have a democratic right to have a different point of view.

      Your different point of view to mine about Charlie Hebdo does NOT offend me. I welcome the chance to discuss this topic with you. Therein is the difference.

      • Don W

        People choose whether or not they are offended. People don’t have a right not to be offended.

    • pak

      You believe (and am assuming we talking in this case about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons) that the purpose of publishing anti-islamic caricatures is to “purposely offend”. I equally believe that the intended audience for these satirical cartoons is one that welcomes commentary on a variety of topics and is open to being “offended” or not. Muslims do not have to buy this publication or even look at the images. It is their choice to be “offended” but they don’t want others to have the same choice. I think by catering to that limited view we lose freedom of speech, whichever view is right.

  • cows4me

    Stuff them. I bet these are the very same Muslims that claim they are moderate and only seek to live in peace. Of course they are all full of it, the whole damn lot. There are not moderate Muslims and so called tolerance is as thick as the skin on their teeth.

  • BloodyOrphan

    Death to Islam!, may it be banished to the History books as yet another horrendous mistake.

  • Rodger T

    1. 5 BILLION MUSLIMS HAVE THEIR FEELINGS HURT

    I`m afraid I can only quote She who must not be named ,

    DIDDUMS!

  • Brianna Aramis

    Oh yeah let’s blame every Muslim for what happened. Which is pretty much like saying we should blame every white person for what they did to people of colour. Yes what happened is wrong but why is everyone bashing the religion and not the people who committed the crime like HELLO??

    • wanarunna

      Whilst I agree that you can’t blame all Muslims for the Charlie Hebdo massacre, I have no problem with ridiculing all Muslims and Islam if for example it is a widely accepted tenet of Islam that it is ok for a man to shag a sheep or a goat, so long as they kill it afterwards, but it is not ok for a muslim woman to show her ankles in public.

      • Brianna Aramis

        Most Muslim women have the choice of what they wear, personally I don’t agree with the religion or any religion for that fact but I don’t ridicule other religions it’s just not my place to ridicule a religion I know nothing of :)

        • wanarunna

          do you believe that a concept that you find silly should be given protection from criticism simply because it is couched as a religion?

          • Brianna Aramis

            What are you actually trying to say?

          • Brianna Aramis

            Ok I get what you’re trying to say but they went further than “criticism” have you seen the comics it was far beyond satire! Freedom of speech is great but in my opinion I do feel as though the comics crossed a line. They want to say freedom of speech in Frace but what about freedom of religion? http://rt.com/news/197348-france-woman-niqab-opera/ :))

          • Mrs_R

            You appear to be confused as to who crossed the line. I’m thinking it was the nutcases who took exception to a cartoon and gunned down unarmed men and women. Surely you aren’t trying to argue those people deserved what they got?

          • Brianna Aramis

            No not at all I just think those comics were disgusting of course I don’t believe people deserved to die because of it

          • wanarunna

            The comics were comics – just cartoons, drawings. How can a drawing be going too far in defence of free speech, but multiple murders is not going too far in defence of freedom of religion.

          • Brianna Aramis

            You missed the entire point of what I just said :))

          • wanarunna

            No I didn’t. I don’t care whether the comic was mild poking of fun, cutting satire, harsh critcism, or cruel condemnation. There is no line a drawing can cross that takes it beyond the bounds of free speech. There is certainly no line that it can cross that justifies a whole section of the community claiming they are affronted to the extent that some of that community feel justified in murdering people.
            Look at it this way – the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists are the Wests equivalent to the islamic extremists. They feel so passionately about a particular subject that they feel justified in taking extreme measures. However they do it in a civilised way, a way that doesn’t involve killing people. They do it through the medium of cartoons.

          • Eiselmann

            I like freedom of religion …I’m a Christian but if I dropped religion all together everyone I know (Christian or otherwise) would shrug their shoulders and carry on……try changing religion in say Iran…or Afghanistan or pretty much any Muslim country…there’s only one penalty and its got nothing to with shrugging shoulders and carrying on with your day.. When a person chooses to convert to Islam they take all the freedom of choice away from their off-spring.

        • pak

          I think your comment that you “know nothing” about islam is the point. Perhaps if you read up about it and understood that “muslims will only live as an oppressive majority and a turbulent minority” (Dr K.D. Prithpal, Prof. of Comparative Religion, University of Alberta) then you might be better placed to comment, and possibly re-think such remarks as “Most muslim women have the choice of what they wear” and so on.

          • Brianna Aramis

            Idk I know a lot of Muslim woman who wear what they want and are still proud of the religion they follow :)) You can’t seriously be saying 1.5 billion Muslims follow Islam in exatly the same way just like any religion is my point

          • pak

            The difficulty is that islam is not “just like any religion” and is a political ideology with far reaching implications into our society with things like halal certification, their views on anyone not of their faith, etc. islam has a very dark side and discrepancies between how they want it perceived as a “religion of peace” and the realities of its basic tenets, which are quite the opposite, with harsh doctrines that are essential to the practices of islam. I was merely suggesting you look under the covers and be open to the truth of this “religion”.

          • Brianna Aramis

            I’m not going to argue about Islam it’s pointless

          • Bryan

            that is exactly the issue they don’t want anyone to question what they are doing they don”t want to be accountable to the world they live in’

  • Bryan

    It’s no different from People who get hauled up for bringing their company Name into bad light so you want to found a new religion so rule 1 is the name of the leader cannot be disrespected. 2. you bow down to the leader when ever you see them and why these rules to simply curb the followers and control them. These are old principles, The romans used it, the Egyptians used it and i could add plenty of others, so this what it is really about, are they that insecure, that if anyone questions their leaders name they have to go out and tear the place and people up, because if they don’t they will not get to paradise, so it’s basically a works based control system to achieve world domination. three things that Islam does not have NO Grace NO Mercy No Forgiveness, yet when they make mistakes we are supposed to be loving, graceful and merciful and forgive them and show love by allowing them the human right to walk all over us and be real nice and bow down and let them chop our heads off.yea right

  • Baz KIng

    What a bunch of 1st division losers…Islam is vile at its most moderate
    I have just finished reading White Gold for the second time it’s a book everyone
    Should read its a true story of a young lad taken a slave by Barbary pirates and sold in a morroco slave market…1.5 to 2 million English and Europeans were captured and never seen again in most cases by their families once sold into slavery by the Muslim bastards
    Also about 12 million African people …and they still practice this today,,,
    Baz king

  • Rick H

    Naked people offend you.
    You no longer, if you ever did, visit a nudist colony.
    You don’t kill the nudists.

    Drunken idiots are not to your fancy.
    You no longer join in with “shots nights”.
    You don’t kill the wasted ones.

    Cartoonists draw a figure that could be anybody, but you believe it to be Muhammet / Muhammad; and that offends you.
    You no longer look at that artists cartoons.
    You don’t go and butcher them.

    If you don’t like somebody, don’t go to their place.

    It’s not rocket science.

  • intelligentes candida diva

    Choudary needs to rethink his own and his types “acts of war” &”blatant provocation”
    The provocative belligerent explicit be headings of innocent people, along with the mass murders > Pakistan school children and Mosul to mention 2 incidents, are these not blatant provocative acts of war? I suggest they are!
    Does Choudary and his crew think they can keep taunting the masses across the world and not get a response or reaction?

    Charlie Hebdo is doing is what they do, but perhaps Choudary & his crew thought a few manipulative words after his types vicious cowardly murdering spree might intimidate, wrong !
    Choudary needs to grow up, stop being so precious and sanctimonious, its a damm cartoon.

    Heres a few samples of his types blatant provocative acts of war in the link
    Some of us are not stupid, making the comments he has made I believe are his calling card for the “lone wolves” to get positioned to attack I bet ….just saying.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISIL_beheading_incidents

    As for sacrilege …..life is sacred and to murder the people in such irreverent conditions is sacrilege …damm this makes me feel angry.

    I am not into making fun of people but I am into freedom of speech …
    Well done Charlie Hebdo buyers what a unified supportive message of freedom !!!!

  • Andrew Gibson

    One issue is people being “conveniently” offended. How do we know the offence taken is genuine, instead of a way to advance their political goals? To quote the bard: “Methinks thou dost protest too much”.

    If you are offended, the least you expect is an apology, and leverage in any ongoing battles. That’s unfair because there’s no way to test for the offence taken, hence there is “no right NOT to be offended”.

  • Brianna Aramis

    Unless someone actually gives me a reason why an entire religion is being blamed for something that only a minority did then I really don’t care like that’s literally my only problem and the only point I was trying to make. Also please don’t tell me it was in the name of Allah please like anyone trying to prove a point here actually reads the Quran.

    • pak

      If you don’t care to find out the reasons for yourself then that is entirely up to you. No one has any responsibility to provide it for you. People here are only expressing informed views having spent some effort on educating themselves. And that includes studying the koran. As I said, “you can lead a horse to water …”

38%