I see a £68 million mosque is being built at the site of the 9/11 ruins so jihadists can gloat hourly on the ashes and drown them with spittle.

SFO

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ound-Zero.html

The proposed mosque is hardly run by jihadists. And it's not AT Ground Zero. It's simply in the vicinity.

Anyway, more "offensive" pictures:






Bonus on the last one: includes depictions of Moses and Jesus.

Yeah like the mosque for 40000 worshippers they wanted to build next to the London Olympic stadium was merely bankrolled by wahhabists but was in fact only for moderate peace loving worship.

omg that is so offensive!

Is the facebook group gone? Can't seem to log on and it doesn't show up in search.

i have been thinking about this. if this is the case and this was the intention of the people involved then i think that i could see the merit.

Poking the muslims is morally right?

Looks like it is gone. Whose for draw an offensive picture of Jesus day?

are you asking me?

thats like asking if murdering unborn fetuses is wrong?

when you load the question that way, there is no good answer. youve already assumed the answer in your question.

I'm not bothered too much about people being offended (I don't accept that any right not to be offended exists), but I'd really like you to expand on this. What special insight do you feel you have into Islam, that makes you more qualified than an actual Muslim to say what is 'the point of Islam'? This probably sounds like a rhetorical question, but believe me, it's not.

To me it seems analagous to English football (soccer) hooliganism. The 'firms' (as I am assured they are known) are not football fans as such - they are rioting fans, fist-fight fans - essentially, violence fans. And they comprise maybe 0.1% of people who pay attention to football. Can a cricket fan say with justification that rioting is 'the point' of following football? Can anyone?

It's quite probable, going on past experience, that you'll throw out some verses from the Qur'an to support your claim. If that is your first port of call, would you accept that murdering homosexuals, witches and adulterers is 'the point' of Judaism? And if that's not your first port of call, what is?

Buddhas of Bamyan 1976 Afghanistan



2001



2005

Where was the muslim outrage for offending another religion? Oh I see, the religion wasn't Islam so it is ok.

I was wrong sorta. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates later condemned the destruction as "savage".[17]

However, I think that was due to international pressure, and not true outrage

though it wasnt my argument you were referring to, id be willing to bite that bullet. i dont think its a central point, but its a point. and one they thankfully gave up.

islam is different though. its younger, and has yet to go through much of the secularization and watering down that christianity and judaism has.

But I gotta say this one is absolutely hilarious...

But if they gave it up, you must accept that it is no longer a point - even though those same verses are still a part of the text Judaism considers sacred.

But besides that, who's 'they'? Is there now no such thing as a homophobic Jew? This is the mentality I'm opposing, not the mentality of opposition to violence.

Yeah, that is a good one.

yes, i accept that.

i cant tell what you are trying to say

I guess. Is it the higher good to demonstrate freedom of speech or to not intentionally inflame someone who already thinks we are a bunch of infidels?

I guess its more like contrasting a good - demonstration of freedom of speech - to an evil - increased possability of violence due to a demonstrated contempt for another society's concept of God.

Call it indifference, but nth degree demonstrations of freedom of speech are not that important to me. If the government was actually censoring the press concerning news of importance then its a big fat problem. Restraining yourself from drawing Mohammed (not one of my bigger temptations) bc of someone else's religious sensibilities seems like a reasonable thing to do, just because it serves no purpose to do so. No good comes of it - it just screams for reprisal. Is this the hill we should die on?

Superficially (though earnestly) I'm saying that Jews (and by extension Muslims) can't be realistically discussed with this catchall 'they'. I know you must know this and I'm not bringing it into the conversation as though you don't; just pointing to it as an obvious truth.

Beyond that, I'm saying that instructions in the holy book do not necessarily have any causal connection to the actions of the believer. The homophobic Jew may point to Leviticus as justification for his attitude, but that doesn't mean Leviticus is the cause of his attitude.

People who equate drawing pictures of Mohammed to "picking on someone's religion" are akin to those who refer to "pro choice" as "anti life".

...did they take it down?

Looks like they have taken it down, however what is strange is that there are smaller groups that still have draw mohamed day, so either one account got hacked or they just had to take the largest one down.

Any one know anything about this?

This movie is highly offensive to some people. I consider it gore porn. Passion plays have been historically linked to violent attacks of jews in europe.

Hahaha, I just happened to whatch that South Park episode yesterday.

I refer you back to my graff.

So would a muslim just be someone who believes there is a God and he is called Allah or is there more to it? If Allah shows his face to us but we laugh at him and wash a bacon sandwich down with a pint of beer, would that make us muslim because we know? Seeing as Islam means submission as in muslims submit to the will of Allah, you would think that the book, which is all they have to represent the word of Allah (the non-schizophrenics at least), would have something to do with their religion.