albeto. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Because people tend to view things like this as a war against the West, when by far, the victims of Muslim extremists are other Muslims. In a nutshell, it sounds like this argument is asking us to keep in mind who the real victims are here. I don't accept that for many reasons, but if we're talking about general opinion, I think it's irrelevant. Attacks against western cultural behaviors (like freedom of speech, equal education of girls, free-market capitalism) is "a war against the West." It's not surprising to see this war talked about by the citizens of the western world when the battle is waged in western cities and hometowns. That we in the west would be more familiar with attacks in the west is only natural and should in no way distract us from the horror and barbarity of the attacks. It doesn't matter that umpteen percent more victims of this jihad against the west are not westerners, what matters is a jihad against western ideas, western influences, and that puts those of us who participate in these dangers at risk. But really, that's not it, is it, because it's not like education or equality in society is unique to the West, or is unknown in Islamic history. I've seen pictures of Iraq universities with women students dressed in western style contemporary clothing taken in my own lifetime. Universities in Middle Eastern countries were a vibrant part of global education and progress. Clearly this isn't so much a jihad against the west as it is a jihad against progress, secularization of culture, tolerance of less faith - decriminalizing blaspheme. To suggest that there are more Muslim victims than non Muslim victims is an appeal to emotion (so many more dead, what's 12 when compared to 200 school girls?), and a distraction of the intent driving these attacks. What's driving these attacks is a sincere belief that bloodlust, revenge for blaspheme, is justified, that one's religious beliefs are to be tolerated without criticism. I have seen some encouraging posts/tweets from Muslim organizations wanting to discuss issues regarding blasphemy in lieu of the bombings. That could be very promising. I've also seen many many posts along the lines of the cartoons are no where near as offensive as the killing of innocent people is. That is promising. So too is your reaction on facebook. And more importantly, the benign reaction you seem to be getting from it. because there is a lot of rhetoric in the west equating all muslims as jihadists who will kill those who don't believe as they do. as was pointed out earlier - the marches in Germany. the fact is - there are many more who just want to live their lives and raise their families. and they are as much at risk from these terrorists as the rest of us. That Americans and Europeans stereotype all Muslims is another angle of this same bloodlust. "They" deserve revenge for offences against "us." The revenge may be as pronounced as bringing in guns to a place of worship, assuming men in turbans must be Muslim, or as subtle as not renting a house to a Muslim homeschooling family, but it's still revenge behavior. I suspect there's more to it than simply a competition for the rights of a religion to be expressed in a population. There's racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, all kinds of tribalism thinking going on here. Why cater to it when it can be exposed for what it is? Tribalism thinking, bias toward the in-group. When this war against progress is waged by Muslims in the name of Islam, it's only natural, and appropriate, to focus on Islam. When it's waged by Christians or Jews, the same thing goes (even if you are not personally aware of when and how often this happens). We don't think to say, "You know, more Californian's are killed by fellow Californians, so let's keep the Zodiak Killer, and all serial killers, in perspective here." to me, it's exactly the same as calling all blacks criminal thugs just because there are a fair percentage that are.... I find this to be an example of the kind of revenge mindset inspired by tribalism thinking, only expressed in racism rather than islamophobia. It's factually sloppy, racist, and dismissive of the more profound offences against innocence, and violations of justice. But not only that, it reduces an entire population to that of uncivilized barbarians: Blacks are barbarians, look at how many of their own kind they kill. Muslims are barbarians, look at how many of their own kind they kill. "They" deserve whatever they get. Revenge is sweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I see offensive pictures of Jesus all the time, images that mock Him. No one seems to react to those. I wanted to respond to this bit. Culturally it is completely different. It's not against Christianity to have pictures of Jesus or anybody else for that matter. (At least most Christian denominations I'm familiar with.) It is, in most madhabs (schools of thoughts), not allowed to have pictures of any Prophet, be it Jesus, Mohammad, or Moses. They take the whole no graven images thing very seriously. There is a good subset of Muslims who will not have pictures of living things in their homes. There were big debates regarding ID cards and passport photos and the like in the modern era. This is part of the reason was Islamic art with its geometric designs and calligraphy flourished...because those were the "allowed" forms of art. Muslims have protested various movies featuring Jesus, Moses, and Noah as well. (Those three come to mind relatively recently....thinking of "Last Temptation of Christ", "Prince of Egypt" (yes, even a cartoon Moses was offensive), and the Russell Crowe Noah movie.) On the other hand, in Christianity, religious art featuring depictions of religious figures has been important at least since the Renaissance. Icons are quite popular in Orthodox Christianity. Also remember that many Muslims grow up in countries where blasphemy laws do exist....and there is definitely a culture of while one may make fun of religious figures like Imams and such, one does not make jokes about Prophets and the like. It is not considered abnormal in the US to make fun of religious figures of all stripes. So while I don't condone at all what happened....and personally I don't get the whole no images thing or even the non-joking thing.....it is a completely different culture. I've had this debate/discussion with Muslims before. They do not understand how we can be so disrespectful to God's prophets. It baffles them how Christians who view Jesus not just as a Prophet or Rabbi, but as actually God, can disrespect him/treat him casually. I've countered with, "well, I think God has a good sense of humor..." But that argument doesn't fly. I've even been called out for my use of casual language regarding prayer, etc. It is a completely different culture. The good news is that apparently this horrific tragedy is causing some religious leaders to start the discussion about blasphemy and other things. I'd like to see things change. Humor and sarcasm can be very powerful tools against extremism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeacherZee Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 One of the major Swedish papers has published some of Charlie Hebdo's front pages http://mobil.dn.se/nyheter/bildspel-charlie-hebdos-forstasidor/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Some cartoonists have already responded. Some powerful images here. View at your own discretion. Thank you for sharing these. A good cartoon is definitely worth a 1000 words. My thoughts and best wishes are with the staff of Charlie Hebdo and the families of the victims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 One of the major Swedish papers has published some of Charlie Hebdo's front pages http://mobil.dn.se/nyheter/bildspel-charlie-hebdos-forstasidor/ I was kind of hoping I'd wake up to all of the major papers in the world doing this. In the US, I'd at least like to have seen the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune do this. I'd love to see the Arabic-language papers out of London do it too. Apparently, a German paper did as well. http://www.wsj.com/articles/european-newspapers-show-support-for-charlie-hebdo-1420725265 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negin Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Banksy weighs in... https://mobile.twitter.com/bkjabour/status/552983615747796994/photo/1 Jane, this is a terrific cartoon, but I believe I saw in an earlier link that it is incorrectly attributed to Banksy. I'll try to go back and see if I can find the cartoonist's name. The illustrator's name is Lucille Clerc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I wanted to respond to this bit. Culturally it is completely different. It's not against Christianity to have pictures of Jesus or anybody else for that matter. (At least most Christian denominations I'm familiar with.) It is, in most madhabs (schools of thoughts), not allowed to have pictures of any Prophet, be it Jesus, Mohammad, or Moses. They take the whole no graven images thing very seriously. And yet - I saw yesterday a whole bunch of Islamic art of the prophet with comments that it was not forbidden until 16th-17th C ? I saw quite a number yesterday on twitter. I'm hesitant to link hwvr.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 From The Onion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 And yet - I saw yesterday a whole bunch of Islamic art of the prophet with comments that it was not forbidden until 16th-17th C ? I saw quite a number yesterday on twitter. I'm hesitant to link hwvr.... It is not common in most madhabs. I do think it did exist (and may still exist) in some Shia madhabs. Usually, they show a blank face, though. OK, I googled, and yes, I was right about Shi'a madhabs. It's an interesting article. I didn't know about MoMA removing artwork. That makes me sad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 There are a lot of good visual commentary here: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/08/europe/charlie-hebdo-cartoons/index.html I especially thought the one that is labeled: there was another victim was insightful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Is it considered unusual for terrorists like the ones in France to run? I ask because I was just listening to a Radiolab podcast about the Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi and their point was you escape, you fail. As a case in point, it was heard on a tapped line from the 2008 attack in Mumbai where a terrorist was speaking with his handler. The handler is heard telling the terrorist that his mission will not be a success until he is killed and then his handler stayed on the line to make sure he wasn't taken in alive. That's interesting. It could be that these guys were lone wolves, rather than minions acting at the behest of some larger terrorist organization. If that's the case, death may not be part of the plan. They also may have plans to go to Syria or wherever and be "heroes". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Let's add to the visuals the Astérix Tweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Also remember that many Muslims grow up in countries where blasphemy laws do exist.... And, presumably, laws against murder as well. Are all crimes equal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathnerd Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Also remember that many Muslims grow up in countries where blasphemy laws do exist....and there is definitely a culture of while one may make fun of religious figures like Imams and such, one does not make jokes about Prophets and the like. It is not considered abnormal in the US to make fun of religious figures of all stripes. What is puzzling to me is that why these radicals who believe in capital punishment for blasphemy as per their religious teachings do not understand that they are not living in a Theocracy or that there is no Sharia law in the West. Why do they not understand that killing someone because they wrote something or drew a picture is a NO in decent societies and that no one can use violence to silence criticism? The best option for them is to relocate to a Theocracy of their choice and contribute heavily to the law enforcement there! And whenever I hear reports about "let the the blood of infidels run on the streets" type of speech in religious places of worship run by these radicals in Western countries, I find it puzzling again - that these radicals claim their right to free speech when spewing their hate speech and then attack free speech when it is not so convenient to their beliefs. And the irony is that the policeman who got shot by these terrorists and died guarding Charlie Hedbo was a muslim. ETA: I really wish I could read French now because it would be nice to read and understand all the cartoons in French coming out in support of Charlie Hedbo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negin Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 :hurray: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathnerd Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I had no idea that the policeman was a Muslim. He begged for his life, according to news reports and amateur videos of the incident. Warning: too graphic and disturbing, so don't watch the video if you would rather not - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-terror-attack-je-suis-ahmed-merabet.html?_r=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negin Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 What is puzzling to me is that why these radicals who believe in capital punishment for blasphemy as per their religious teachings do not understand that they are not living in a Theocracy or that there is no Sharia law in the West. Why do they not understand that killing someone because they wrote something or drew a picture is a NO in decent societies and that no one can use violence to silence criticism? The best option for them is to relocate to a Theocracy of their choice and contribute heavily to the law enforcement there! On a certain level, I agree with you... but I think you think that this is really about Islam or religion and I'm not 100% sure that it is. Islam is the excuse. Religion is the excuse. These guys drank, smoke pot, slept around (similar to the 9/11 guys, actually). The alcohol prohibition is far more basic then deciding to get offended by people publishing harmless cartoons. There are much more likely reasons for their actions regarding the Muslim population in France which leads back to Colonialism, marginalization, unemployment, etc. French Muslims are, for the most part, extremely secular. The ones going on jihadi style missions tend to be second and third generation French Muslims (just as the brothers were in the attack). Remember, Algeria gained its freedom back in the early 60s. Morocco and Tunisia in the 50s. Lebanon after WWII. I think it's far more complicated. It's something France, and in general, the world needs to figure out. How to deal with marginalized youth...who are underemployed, discriminated against, etc. If you look at the demographics of Muslim countries, they are overwhelmingly skewed young. It's a problem that will get worse. I'm also not sure I understand the relocate to a theocracy of their choice statement. These guys were born in Paris, France. In theory, it sounds nice, but is it policy we want to expand or does it only apply to Muslims. Where do they go? They're Sunni, so not welcome in Iran (which is probably the closest to a theocracy.) I suppose as of a few years, there's now ISIS in Syria, but just because one wants to live in a theocracy does it necessary mean they want to live with a group whose teachings are completely contrary to orthodox Islam? The Saudis generally are very picky. They'd take them as guest workers, but not with the previous arrest. (Don't want anybody who might overthrow the monarchy.) Do you feel that way about extremist Christians? Because there are plenty in the US who would like to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. We have lots of Christian hate groups, and Christian survivor/militant groups. Should they all be exported too? They do not want a separation of Church and State at all. Where to? Do we create Manzanar type internment camps for extremists? Is it GitMo all over again, where we hold some acknowledgeable innocent people indefinitely because we're not sure what to do with them? This certain Christian group uses their influence to change what should be secular education into very much a certain fundamentalist Christian point of view regarding Science, American History, etc. There are those who bomb abortion clinics. There are those who are trying to change secular abortion laws into religious prohibitions. Do we kick them out too? There are Orthodox Jews who feel that way about Israel, even though it is not a theocracy. So where do all the extremists go? And whenever I hear reports about "let the the blood of infidels run on the streets" type of speech in religious places of worship run by these radicals in Western countries, I find it puzzling again - that these radicals claim their right to free speech when spewing their hate speech and then attack free speech when it is not so convenient to their beliefs. For the record, I have never once, not ever heard any Imam in a mosque in the states say anything about the blood of infidels. I'm not sure where you get that from. You make it sound like this is a common occurrence in mosques everywhere. It isn't. Sermons/khutbahs are quite similar to every Christian sermon I've heard in my life. They usually focus either on a story from the Qur'an or the Prophet's life....or on how to be a better person. Many are extremely boring. For the record, Christians and Jews are not infidels/kafirs. They are people of the Book. That's Islam 101. There was the weird blind Sheikh back around the first WTC bombers...but basically since 9/11 every mosque pretty much has an FBI presence in it. Nobody's preaching stuff like that in a mosque. You may find that stuff on the Internet....and that's my understanding how these groups recruit...but in person? They'd end up in jail rather quickly. And the irony is that the policeman who got shot by these terrorists and died guarding Charlie Hedbo was a muslim. Not really ironic. He was like the majority of France's 5-6 million Muslims. A normal person, with a normal job...with a family he loved and a country he loved. Like most any other policeman, he was trying to help people in need. Muslims like him are hated just as much (even more) by the extremists than non-Muslims. The Muslim cop was not the one assigned to Charlie Hebdo's editor. He was just on duty in that arrondissement. ETA: I really wish I could read French now because it would be nice to read and understand all the cartoons in French coming out in support of Charlie Hedbo. I think I'd rather we work more to understand the appeal of the extremist ideologies, and then work to change it. I want to know how somebody who drinks and has a girlfriend which are basic no-nos in Islam somehow thinks he's Mr. Uber-religion and has a right to avenge anything. I just don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Like this article "#JeSuisAhmed is also trending. "I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed" http://mic.com/articles/107988/the-hero-of-the-charlie-hebdo-shooting-we-re-overlooking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Just horrible. Just on the side though, raising a Muslim child (even in a secular household) is tough here. On news channels the crazies are slicing people's heads off and shooting journalists in the name of religion. In movies anybody with the middle eastern background always plays a terrorist. Not a single role model to watch. Hard to not hate yourself. FYI, I am not middle eastern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathnerd Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I don't know how to quote: >>Do you feel that way about extremist Christians? I would feel the same way about any extremist of any religion if they tried to kill someone for writing something they disagreed with (Christians extremists included). Please note that Charlie Hedbo was an equal opportunity offender and they have taken potshots at every religion mentioned by you. >>So where do all the extremists go? If you ask me, to jail or to a theocracy which sponsors the same flavor of radicalism as these extremists. >>Nobody's preaching stuff like that in a mosque. You may find that stuff on the Internet....and that's my understanding how these groups recruit...but in person? They'd end up in jail rather quickly. Google the names "Anjem Choudary", "Abu Hamza al-Masri" and "Sheikh Sharif Hussein" - they all live in western countries and being monitored by FBI does not seem to shut them up. An example of a sermon given by one of them is here (I googled "inflammatory mosque speech" and this popped up): http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaide-mosque-preacher-sheikh-sharif-hussein-directs-fury-at-at-buddhists-hindus-howard-and-obama/story-fni6uo1m-1226701605335? >> I want to know how somebody who drinks and has a girlfriend ... These guys probably considered themselves "reformed" and on a path to martyrdom because they decided to hunt down innocents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Blah...my Multiquote isn't working. This is for Roadrunner :) Yes, that's why we try to talk about Muslim heroes. We'll talk about Ahmed the cop. We talk about Muslim women who achieve great things. When the Nobels come out, we talk about Muslim winners. I love some of the tweets above. We point out Muslims who do good...all the time. But still, it's hard to combat the "bombers, bellydancers, and billionaires" stereotypes. I'm very sad that "Little Mosque on the Prairie" was never shown here on US TV. I know somebody bought the rights, but it never happened. Being able to laugh at Muslim characters....see them as bumbling and normal and funny.... would help, I think. I'd say youth but the brothers are 32 and 34, so not that young. Then you have Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who partied and smoked pot. Yes...and I was thinking about him today...in relation to the 18 year old who turned himself in. I'm more likely to be lenient with the 18 year old who turned himself in over Dzhokhar....even though I have no doubt that his brother was probably a controlling influence on him. Both were 18. Why? Maybe because I'm assuming that the 18 year old in Paris was not one of the shooters...it was the brothers?? I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 >>Nobody's preaching stuff like that in a mosque. You may find that stuff on the Internet....and that's my understanding how these groups recruit...but in person? They'd end up in jail rather quickly. Google the names "Anjem Choudary", "Abu Hamza al-Masri" and "Sheikh Sharif Hussein" - they all live in western countries and being monitored by FBI does not seem to shut them up. An example of a sermon given by one of them is here (I googled "inflammatory mosque speech" and this popped up): http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaide-mosque-preacher-sheikh-sharif-hussein-directs-fury-at-at-buddhists-hindus-howard-and-obama/story-fni6uo1m-1226701605335? I mentioned in the US. Those guys are in Australia and the UK. Abu Hamza al-Masri was convicted in US court of 11 terrorism charges. I'll repeat, I've never heard that in the US...and since 9/11, the FBI has had a very strong presence in most mosques. What is the solution to these Internet guys? Most people favor free speech. Should there be a worldwide effort to shut down their sites? Is it better to infiltrate them and let them preach on? What's the solution? Personally, I say....get them off the air... arrest them for inciting violence, whatever. But is that the right solution? I don't know. It could become a slippery slope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 On a certain level, I agree with you... but I think you think that this is really about Islam or religion and I'm not 100% sure that it is. Islam is the excuse. Religion is the excuse. According to the BBC, witnesses said they heard the gunmen shouting "We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad" and "God is Great" in Arabic ("Allahu Akbar"). If this is the case, regardless of what other variables may have contributed to the event, Islam was most certainly one. Arguably, the fundamental one. These guys drank, smoke pot, slept around (similar to the 9/11 guys, actually). The alcohol prohibition is far more basic then deciding to get offended by people publishing harmless cartoons. No True Scotsman. It's completely irrelevant and shouldn't be a part of the conversation at all. I'm also not sure I understand the relocate to a theocracy of their choice statement. These guys were born in Paris, France. In theory, it sounds nice, but is it policy we want to expand or does it only apply to Muslims. Where do they go? They're Sunni, so not welcome in Iran (which is probably the closest to a theocracy.) I suppose as of a few years, there's now ISIS in Syria, but just because one wants to live in a theocracy does it necessary mean they want to live with a group whose teachings are completely contrary to orthodox Islam? The Saudis generally are very picky. They'd take them as guest workers, but not with the previous arrest. (Don't want anybody who might overthrow the monarchy.) Yeah. Attacks on home turf aren't about people who can't get the passports to go to the country they want. It's about making the country you live in become the country you want. It's how all revolutionaries are fought. Successors decide on whether or not the revolution was justified and part of a Great Noble Thing, or whether it was an insolent uprising of misguided thugs. These thugs had been duped into thinking they were the spark to light the next Great, Noble Revolution. Do you feel that way about extremist Christians? Because there are plenty in the US who would like to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. We have lots of Christian hate groups, and Christian survivor/militant groups. Should they all be exported too? They do not want a separation of Church and State at all. Where to? Do we create Manzanar type internment camps for extremists? Is it GitMo all over again, where we hold some acknowledgeable innocent people indefinitely because we're not sure what to do with them? This certain Christian group uses their influence to change what should be secular education into very much a certain fundamentalist Christian point of view regarding Science, American History, etc. There are those who bomb abortion clinics. There are those who are trying to change secular abortion laws into religious prohibitions. Do we kick them out too? There are Orthodox Jews who feel that way about Israel, even though it is not a theocracy. So where do all the extremists go? Very good points. I think I'd rather we work more to understand the appeal of the extremist ideologies, and then work to change it. I want to know how somebody who drinks and has a girlfriend which are basic no-nos in Islam somehow thinks he's Mr. Uber-religion and has a right to avenge anything. I just don't get it. No True Scotsman again. The idea of the right to avenge goes along with the idea of what Real Islam is. People make these determinations based on all kinds of variables including education, culture, personal experiences. When one follows a faith-based ideology, there exists very little accountability. That accountability available in Islam is similar to the accountability available in Christianity and Judaism - the texts (which are open to interpretation, obviously), and social acceptance. There is no objective standard by which one can measure accuracy with regard to belief, and because belief inspires behavior, you'll naturally see variation exhibited in personal actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I bet most sociopaths and serial killers of the region have joined Isis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I think it's understood that it is not negotiable. I can't imagine anybody normal who would think somehow that the west would backtrack on those values. I do think that those chopping heads and taking slaves who have gathered across in Iraq from every country in the region are sociopaths and murders. My comment refers to Isis, not Paris shooting. Sorry for distraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I wanted to respond to this bit. Culturally it is completely different. It's not against Christianity to have pictures of Jesus or anybody else for that matter. (At least most Christian denominations I'm familiar with.) It is, in most madhabs (schools of thoughts), not allowed to have pictures of any Prophet, be it Jesus, Mohammad, or Moses. They take the whole no graven images thing very seriously. There is a good subset of Muslims who will not have pictures of living things in their homes. There were big debates regarding ID cards and passport photos and the like in the modern era. This is part of the reason was Islamic art with its geometric designs and calligraphy flourished...because those were the "allowed" forms of art. Muslims have protested various movies featuring Jesus, Moses, and Noah as well. (Those three come to mind relatively recently....thinking of "Last Temptation of Christ", "Prince of Egypt" (yes, even a cartoon Moses was offensive), and the Russell Crowe Noah movie.) On the other hand, in Christianity, religious art featuring depictions of religious figures has been important at least since the Renaissance. Icons are quite popular in Orthodox Christianity. Also remember that many Muslims grow up in countries where blasphemy laws do exist....and there is definitely a culture of while one may make fun of religious figures like Imams and such, one does not make jokes about Prophets and the like. It is not considered abnormal in the US to make fun of religious figures of all stripes. So while I don't condone at all what happened....and personally I don't get the whole no images thing or even the non-joking thing.....it is a completely different culture. I've had this debate/discussion with Muslims before. They do not understand how we can be so disrespectful to God's prophets. It baffles them how Christians who view Jesus not just as a Prophet or Rabbi, but as actually God, can disrespect him/treat him casually. I've countered with, "well, I think God has a good sense of humor..." But that argument doesn't fly. I've even been called out for my use of casual language regarding prayer, etc. It is a completely different culture. The good news is that apparently this horrific tragedy is causing some religious leaders to start the discussion about blasphemy and other things. I'd like to see things change. Humor and sarcasm can be very powerful tools against extremism. I fully understand that you are a peaceful person and you know and commune with peaceful people. The argument of a different culture, however, doesn't even begin to describe what is happening here. The "cultural argument" falls flat. Culture may be a reason, but it is not an excuse. The religious leaders need to do far more than discuss blasphemy. Every time one of these slaughter-fests occurs it just serves to reinforce the fear and violent stereotypes. Discussions are not promising. Discussions are not hopeful. Discussions mean nothing. Discussions do nothing. Actions. That is what is needed. Real. Tangible. Actions. Actions against the violent outbursts. Sanctions. Excommunications. Whatever it takes to Stop! The! Violence! that is destroying lives and the reputation of a religion worldwide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Actions. That is what is needed. Real. Tangible. Actions. Actions against the violent outbursts. Sanctions. Excommunications. Whatever it takes to Stop! The! Violence! that is destroying lives and the reputation of a religion worldwide. This needs to be repeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacia Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I fully understand that you are a peaceful person and you know and commune with peaceful people. The argument of a different culture, however, doesn't even begin to describe what is happening here. The "cultural argument" falls flat. Culture may be a reason, but it is not an excuse. The religious leaders need to do far more than discuss blasphemy. Every time one of these slaughter-fests occurs it just serves to reinforce the fear and violent stereotypes. Discussions are not promising. Discussions are not hopeful. Discussions mean nothing. Discussions do nothing. Actions. That is what is needed. Real. Tangible. Actions. Actions against the violent outbursts. Sanctions. Excommunications. Whatever it takes to Stop! The! Violence! that is destroying lives and the reputation of a religion worldwide. Yes. I firmly believe that if real (positive) change is to take place and have lasting effect, the change is going to have to come from within the religion itself. (I say that whether we're discussing a religion, a corporation, a group, or a single individual. True change is not going to happen unless it happens on the inside.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Yes. I firmly believe that if real (positive) change is to take place and have lasting effect, the change is going to have to come from within the religion itself. (I say that whether we're discussing a religion, a corporation, a group, or a single individual. True change is not going to happen unless it happens on the inside.) Do you have any idea how many Muslims die trying to advocate such changes? Do you have any idea how many scholars and shaykhs have disassembled and debated the jihadists views? Once again, you're assuming that this is a religious issue. I don't think that is it at its core. When the British looked at the Jihadi fighters going to Syria, they found that they were often ordering basic books on Islam to learn about their faith. It's about power. It's about violence. it's about revenge. It's about evoking terror. If it was really about religion, then you wouldn't see the violence. Why? Because Islam does not condone what they are doing. Because the Islamic scholars have destroyed ISIS's views on just about everything. Religion is the excuse. From the article linked above: "In 2008, a classified briefing note on radicalisation, prepared by MI5’s behavioural science unit, was leaked to the Guardian. It revealed that, “far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could ... be regarded as religious novices.†The analysts concluded that “a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation,†the newspaper said. For more evidence, read the books of the forensic psychiatrist and former CIA officer Marc Sageman; the political scientist Robert Pape; the international relations scholar Rik Coolsaet; the Islamism expert Olivier Roy; the anthropologist Scott Atran. They have all studied the lives and backgrounds of hundreds of gun-toting, bomb-throwing jihadists and they all agree that Islam isn’t to blame for the behaviour of such men (and, yes, they usually are men). Instead they point to other drivers of radicalisation: moral outrage, disaffection, peer pressure, the search for a new identity, for a sense of belonging and purpose. As Atran pointed out in testimony to the US Senate in March 2010: “... what inspires the most lethal terrorists in the world today is not so much the Quran or religious teachings as a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends, and through friends, eternal respect and remembrance in the wider world.†He described wannabe jihadists as “bored, underÂemployed, overqualified and underwhelmed†young men for whom “jihad is an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer ... thrilling, glorious and cool.â€" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momof3 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Yes. I firmly believe that if real (positive) change is to take place and have lasting effect, the change is going to have to come from within the religion itself. (I say that whether we're discussing a religion, a corporation, a group, or a single individual. True change is not going to happen unless it happens on the inside.) I think that this is maybe the one positive (I really hesitate to use that word in this context... :() outcome of all of this violence/murder. I have to hope that these jihadists are going to shoot themselves in the foot (so to speak) by their actions. Killing innocent children, journalists, other Muslims... I keep thinking that surely *this* will be the last horror story... I was so hoping that newspapers by the *thousands* would be standing for free speech this morning...sending these terrorists a clear message of "sorry, you lose. you tried to terrorize us...instead we are emboldened by your actions to speak what we please." Easy to say, I know, bc I'm not a journalist/cartoonist/editor... :/ I am encouraged to see the French people standing together... All that to say, I think we're getting closer to the "real change"...I just hope it comes before we have to read another of these horrible stories. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momof3 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Do you have any idea how many Muslims die trying to advocate such changes? Do you have any idea how many scholars and shaykhs have disassembled and debated the jihadists views? Once again, you're assuming that this is a religious issue. I don't think that is it at its core. When the British looked at the Jihadi fighters going to Syria, they found that they were often ordering basic books on Islam to learn about their faith. It's about power. It's about violence. it's about revenge. It's about evoking terror. If it was really about religion, then you wouldn't see the violence. Why? Because Islam does not condone what they are doing. Because the Islamic scholars have destroyed ISIS's views on just about everything. Religion is the excuse. From the article linked above: "In 2008, a classified briefing note on radicalisation, prepared by MI5’s behavioural science unit, was leaked to the Guardian. It revealed that, “far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could ... be regarded as religious novices.†The analysts concluded that “a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation,†the newspaper said. For more evidence, read the books of the forensic psychiatrist and former CIA officer Marc Sageman; the political scientist Robert Pape; the international relations scholar Rik Coolsaet; the Islamism expert Olivier Roy; the anthropologist Scott Atran. They have all studied the lives and backgrounds of hundreds of gun-toting, bomb-throwing jihadists and they all agree that Islam isn’t to blame for the behaviour of such men (and, yes, they usually are men). Instead they point to other drivers of radicalisation: moral outrage, disaffection, peer pressure, the search for a new identity, for a sense of belonging and purpose. As Atran pointed out in testimony to the US Senate in March 2010: “... what inspires the most lethal terrorists in the world today is not so much the Quran or religious teachings as a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends, and through friends, eternal respect and remembrance in the wider world.†He described wannabe jihadists as “bored, underÂemployed, overqualified and underwhelmed†young men for whom “jihad is an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer ... thrilling, glorious and cool.â€" So...what then is the solution? Stronger governments? Better paying jobs? We have bored, underemployed, etc. teens in America - and have for decades...and some of them end up in gangs, fights, drugs, suicide, etc. We don't have massive training camps for killers...out to obliterate entire countries of innocent people. Is there something about Islam that lends to this? Or maybe just Islamic governments? Or Middle Eastern culture? There has got to be some way to change the "thrilling, glorious, cool" appeal of mass murder! I'm not lashing out at all...nothing meant to be personal. I'm genuinely wanting to believe your post...just frustrated & really trying to make sense of it all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacia Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Do you have any idea how many Muslims die trying to advocate such changes? Do you have any idea how many scholars and shaykhs have disassembled and debated the jihadists views? Once again, you're assuming that this is a religious issue. I don't think that is it at its core. When the British looked at the Jihadi fighters going to Syria, they found that they were often ordering basic books on Islam to learn about their faith. It's about power. It's about violence. it's about revenge. It's about evoking terror. If it was really about religion, then you wouldn't see the violence. Why? Because Islam does not condone what they are doing. Because the Islamic scholars have destroyed ISIS's views on just about everything. Religion is the excuse. Yes, I know. And, as Audrey pointed out, sadly these radicals are destroying the name of a religion worldwide (not to mention the actual death & injury toll). I'm sure a majority of the young jihadis are disaffected, not-very-religious men. I do think this disaffected group is often being courted by older, more influential teachers who do know more about the religion (however misguided) & who do groom the disaffected to carry out a holy war. As far as I understand it, much of the hands-on training for these young, misguided men (& women) is taking place in Islamic nations -- nations/governments that formally align themselves with the religion or where the majority population is Islamic. So there is an intertwining, as I see it. And, I hope, a potential for real (positive) change from within. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I do think that those chopping heads and taking slaves who have gathered across in Iraq from every country in the region are sociopaths and murders. My comment refers to Isis, not Paris shooting. Sorry for distraction. I think it's tempting to assume that people who do violent things are sociopaths (people who murder are, by definition, murderers), but sociopathy and psychopathy are particular neurological types. I think we tend to assume this because we can't "go there" in our imagination or empathize with these behaviors. We can't imagine the kind of thoughts that would motivate such violent action against people who are not a threat, direct or indirect. We conclude, quite naturally I think, that it must be as a result of disordered mental health. There's no more standard definition or accepted parameter for these conditions than there is for autism (as opposed to something like Tourette's or Parkinson's), but that doesn't mean any antisocial behavior can comfortably indicate a pathology (just like "quirkiness" doesn't indicate autism). Conversely, there are a sizable number of sociopaths and psychopaths that are a members of our communities right now and don't exhibit any violent behavior. You may even personally benefit from their particular neurological outlook and social skills. The problem with ideologies like the one under the scope right now is that certain texts, and historical pattern of behavior, do support a violent path. This is where I disagree with umsami, who is a fantastic example of the opposite; certain texts and historical pattern of behavior do support peace and tolerance. To be fair, the Jewish and Christian texts and histories also present both extremes. No True Scotsman fallacies are so common I suspect, because people look at the other path and it doesn't resonate with them, with their experiences. They conclude it must not be real. Certainly culture is a component that is intricately tied in with this issue, and we can learn a lot by studying history and preventing more international animosity, but if the BBC report is correct and the perpetrators of the crime announced the intent was to avenge the supposed honor of their god, we can't reasonably rule out the idea that they followed one of many logical paths supported by certain interpretations of texts and a sympathetic community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 BTW, one of the other victims was of Algerian decent, and his name is definitely Muslim. Mustapha Ourrad was a copy editor at the magazine. (Both Ahmed (the policeman) and Mustapha are nicknames of Muhammad, for lack of a better word. Mustafa is "The Chosen One". Ahmed is "Highly Praised.") So 1/6 of the victims were Muslims. A little higher than the 10% or so Muslim population of France...but pretty reflective. Sadie...I don't think he qualifies as progressive per se, but you might want to check out Prof. Tariq Ramadan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I think it's tempting to assume that people who do violent things are sociopaths (people who murder are, by definition, murderers), but sociopathy and psychopathy are particular neurological types. I think we tend to assume this because we can't "go there" in our imagination or empathize with these behaviors. We can't imagine the kind of thoughts that would motivate such violent action against people who are not a threat, direct or indirect. We conclude, quite naturally I think, that it must be as a result of disordered mental health. There's no more standard definition or accepted parameter for these conditions than there is for autism (as opposed to something like Tourette's or Parkinson's), but that doesn't mean any antisocial behavior can comfortably indicate a pathology (just like "quirkiness" doesn't indicate autism). Conversely, there are a sizable number of sociopaths and psychopaths that are a members of our communities right now and don't exhibit any violent behavior. You may even personally benefit from their particular neurological outlook and social skills. The problem with ideologies like the one under the scope right now is that certain texts, and historical pattern of behavior, do support a violent path. This is where I disagree with umsami, who is a fantastic example of the opposite; certain texts and historical pattern of behavior do support peace and tolerance. To be fair, the Jewish and Christian texts and histories also present both extremes. No True Scotsman fallacies are so common I suspect, because people look at the other path and it doesn't resonate with them, with their experiences. They conclude it must not be real. Certainly culture is a component that is intricately tied in with this issue, and we can learn a lot by studying history and preventing more international animosity, but if the BBC report is correct and the perpetrators of the crime announced the intent was to avenge the supposed honor of their god, we can't reasonably rule out the idea that they followed one of many logical paths supported by certain interpretations of texts and a sympathetic community. I have no clue what you are trying to prove here. Not every sociopath is a murderer? Sure. Not all murderers are sociopaths? Sure. Some religious people are fanatical and kill because their god commended them centuries ago? Sure. Other religions also occasionally promote sadistic behavior in their religious texts? Sure. I don't understand what you are arguing. None of this is news to us. I am saying it takes a special kind of nut to commit those atrocities. Obviously only a small percentage of overall population is actually doing this, which indicates that yes, those are some special nuts. I would hate to imagine if a billion Muslims engaged in this behavior what would happen. Yes the roots are complex (historical, educational, poverty..... Which in turn have complex reasons). I am not sure why this is exploding now to such extend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Just went to read the daily news on BBC and saw this. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30724230 If talks about how the newspapers in the Middle East are covering the event. It's interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I have no clue what you are trying to prove here.... Basically, I was trying to explain why I do not think that those chopping heads and taking slaves who have gathered across in Iraq from every country in the region are sociopaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathnerd Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Yes the roots are complex (historical, educational, poverty..... Which in turn have complex reasons). I am not sure why this is exploding now to such extend. You nailed it - it is the education that is screwed up for thousands and millions of poor people who are born in certain parts of the world. Just google "saudi financed madrassas in pakistan". There are schools in backward areas of certain countries called Madrassas where they preach a virulent and radical form of islam and teach that people who do not share their beliefs should be slaughtered. It is heart breaking to see elementary aged kids being taught such hatred and brainwashed and given training in terrorism and then sent out into the world to carry out terrorist agendas in the name of religion. Also google "state sponsored terrorism" and you can see how some countries like Qatar, Yemen, Pakistan etc serve as the backyards for the most violent of the radical muslims. Some of these countries have been playing both sides on America's war on terror all along. The answer, I have always heard is education and prosperity in those parts of the world. I heard that the recruits for these Madrassas are the poorest of the poor and that they have no chance of a good life. Better education and chances for gainful employment in the hotbeds of terrorism can help bring change. I leave you with a link to an article on Madrassas and what they are: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negin Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 :lurk5: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 BBC reporting that police have surrounded a market where the suspects fled and have a hostage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momof3 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30740115 2 people dead...others (at least 1?) being held hostage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 You nailed it - it is the education that is screwed up for thousands and millions of poor people who are born in certain parts of the world. Just google "saudi financed madrassas in pakistan". There are schools in backward areas of certain countries called Madrassas where they preach a virulent and radical form of islam and teach that people who do not share their beliefs should be slaughtered. It is heart breaking to see elementary aged kids being taught such hatred and brainwashed and given training in terrorism and then sent out into the world to carry out terrorist agendas in the name of religion. Also google "state sponsored terrorism" and you can see how some countries like Qatar, Yemen, Pakistan etc serve as the backyards for the most violent of the radical muslims. Some of these countries have been playing both sides on America's war on terror all along. The answer, I have always heard is education and prosperity in those parts of the world. I heard that the recruits for these Madrassas are the poorest of the poor and that they have no chance of a good life. Better education and chances for gainful employment in the hotbeds of terrorism can help bring change. I leave you with a link to an article on Madrassas and what they are: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html Madrassa means school. It varies depending on where it is, and who is running it. If somebody tells you they went to a madrassa (in Arabic) it just means they went to a school. Similarly, saying you are a talib means you are a student, not necessarily a member of the Taliban. While I agree with you education is key, and the Saudi export of their "brand" of Islam is one of the big problems of the era IMHO... implying that this is an "other" problem isn't the case. The men who did this were all born in France and educated in public French schools, which are completely secular. Nicholas Kristof had a good piece in the NY Times a day or two ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/opinion/nicholas-kristof-lessons-from-the-charlie-hebdo-shooting-in-paris.html "Let’s also acknowledge that the most courageous, peace-loving people in the Middle East who are standing up to Muslim fanatics are themselves often devout Muslims. Some read the Quran and blow up girls’ schools, but more read the Quran and build girls’ schools. The Taliban represents one brand of Islam; the Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai the polar opposite." Just saw that the gunman have been killed. I was actually hoping they'd be tried. It will be interesting to see how much the 18 year old knew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeacherZee Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Seems like the killers are dead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Seems like the killers are dead Yes, if the reports are accurate, they're both dead and their hostage was freed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bibiche Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Yes, if the reports are accurate, they're both dead and their hostage was freed. Yes, this is what French news is reporting. They're also reporting dead the person suspected of killing the policewoman yesterday and taking hostages (now freed) this morning. Ouf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathnerd Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Madrassa means school. It varies depending on where it is, and who is running it. If somebody tells you they went to a madrassa (in Arabic) it just means they went to a school. Similarly, saying you are a talib means you are a student, not necessarily a member of the Taliban. The men who did this were all born in France and educated in public French schools, which are completely secular. Thank you. I did not know that Talib means student. I just now googled it. BTW/ the French terrorists may have been to public schools in France. But, according to the TV news I am currently watching, they travelled to one of the terrorist schools in Yemen (or Iraq) and got trained by "al-qaeda masterminds". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bibiche Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 No, now Le Figaro is reporting four hostages (some of those held at the supermarket by the other suspect) dead. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 The attacks were denounced by all major Islamic organisation in AU. But almost immediately, on the left and in the Islamic community (AU), came some level of demand for, and acceptance of, the media self-censoring when it comes satirising religion. I think that undermined the original statements. The most powerful statement of solidarity would have been a single focus on the rights of Charlie to publish under French law. But Sadie, why wouldn't they do that? Free speech is a western concept and there are probably more than a handful of western Christians who would be quite happy if the media became self-censoring with regards to satirizing religion. What we do in western culture with regards to satirizing religion is obscene to many good, reasonable, faithful Muslims. To provide a single focus on the rights of Charlie to publish under French laws would, I think compromise the faithful, no? What Umsami wrote earlier upstream about this not being about religion and/or culture, but about power and violence has struck a chord with me. I think of all the young people (predominantly men) who are flocking to the terrorist organizations and I think it has more to do with license do things that are not not allowed in their own cultures like murder, terror and rape. I suspect that at the heart of it a proclivity for violence is more predominant than a proclivity for profound faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.