this is ridiculous, people there are filled with rage and hatred towards the muslim attackers, then there is she, height of stupidity.
This is a classic case of taking liberalism, claiming it's superiority. And then misusing/soiling it for the sake of some very strange statements.
I see nothing wrong with what she has said/done. Her choice to convert, worship and live as she pleases. Freedom of expression allows her to proclaim it too at even the most inappropriate moment.
She in converting and then openly proclaiming shows more brazen use of her freedoms, the same freedom people held candle vigils for a few days ago.
lovely way to start a denial syndrome attack?
It's his signature. Disguising something utterly stupid in the form of an indirect, meaningless, bent in direction, one-liner.
did you read her statement correctly? lol she said i quote: With regard to her position towards the caricatures of the Prophet, Matic said that she is still for freedom of expression for all, and Charlie Hebdo in particular. “They are making fun of Muhammad and do not harm him. They are making fun of a character that they have imagined and to whom they have given a name. This man is not our Prophet,” she added.
So do you still agree with her? lool So our satirical newspapers can now continue with their normal activities/carricature without Muslims protesting and burning churches all over the world? lool You agree with this? Just let us know. lol
Yes.
Most beautiful slap on face of charlie hebdo idiots
It's actually more of a slap on the faces of people who carried out the attacks and those who were justifying it. See here:
With regard to her position towards the caricatures of the Prophet,
Matic said that she is still for freedom of expression for all, and Charlie Hebdo in particular.
“I will write you the text of the SMS that I received this morning from a mosque which agreed quite well with my thoughts since the beginning of the cartoons, well before I became a Muslim,” she wrote on her page on Wednesday at 12:48.
“They are making fun of Muhammad and do not harm him. They are making fun of a character that they have imagined and to whom they have given a name. This man is not our Prophet,” she added.
French Director Converts to Islam After Charlie Hebdo Attacks | Morocco World News
And I don't care what your book says. I only care what the followers do because the words can't jump out of the book and do anything.
This is true not just for you, but all non-Muslims. We didn't convert to Islam because we suddenly started believing in Islamic texts, we were exposed to it's followers, their ways, culture and practice of their religion.
This is something Muslims find it hard to understand. Which is why so often, the notion of responding with; 'You need to educate yourself on the teachings of Islam and the Qur'an.'... is so often used as a defence. Though I agree with it, people blindly criticising should go read, but the reason for the misconceptions and hate is due to the actions of the Muslims, not the presence of what is and isn't in a book they've never read.
Hitler didn't represent Christianity but his racial superiority and racial superiority is condemned and not acceptable anymore.
Invalid argument, I agreed with you before. But you have to hold the standard for all once you make it for one.
If it is the fault of Muslims there is hate for them. Then it is the fault of Christians that there was hate for the religion at the time of the Crusades, or hate for Christians because of the use of religion by evil powers.
Islam is in a period of mad violence and adjustment. The violence you see is not an Islamic trait, nor the trait of any ideology, it's an entirely human trait and Christianity at one time or another was associated by some to be as violent, not to long ago Anders Breivik gunned down so many kids in Norway, he repeatedly called himself a soldier of Christ. He mentioned the name 'Christ' 500 times in the first part of his manifesto.
Don't provoke him, otherwise you'll get a highly encrypted, brilliantly disguised retort in the form of a shapeless shitpost.
For god's SAKE. Is it this hard for you to absorb this little information? HITLER DIDN'T CLAIM THAT HE WAS REPRESENTING CHRISTIANITY NOR DID HE HAVE ANY INTEREST IN EXPANDING CHRISTIANITY. MUSLIM MILITANTS ON THE OTHER HAND ACTIVELY CLAIM THAT THEY REPRESENT ISLAM AND THEY ACTIVELY ENGAGE IN EXPANDING ISPAM BY MASS MURDER, RAPE, FORCED CONVERSIONS ETC.
It would be wrong if people start blaming Arabs, Pujabis, Pashtuns, Persians etc. for the deeds of Islamists because those people didn't claim that they represented their ethnic groups and they their actions were not aligned with the interests of their ethnicity.
How hard would it be to understand this simple logic?
Try to study the traits of any ideology, as a science, not that the ideologies themselves are science, but their place in the world, and their effect on the human psyche and society at large can be judged scientifically. Once you do that, it's not difficult to see the truth of the matter when it comes to ideology.
That goes for all ideologies, not just one religion, but all, and not just religion, any ideology, Marxism, environmentalism, any '-ism'.