Jump to content

Menu

Eleven (11) dead at Paris newspaper after gunmen attack


unsinkable
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

 

 

It is never acceptable to commit premeditated murder to retaliate for a perceived obscenity. 

 

I am cool if all the rabid religious leaders took Charlie Hebdo and their ilk to court and sued them for millions of dollars because their publication offended reasonable, faithful Muslims.

 

As I mentioned before, Charlie has lampooned other religions and other Gods as well (equal opportunity offender) and did not end up dying because of the offense to those other religions. 

 

But, I was reading a news analysis and it said that killing easy targets in the name of a religion is a good way to provoke the Western world to retaliate against people of a certain religion and then the cynical terrorist leaders can use that as a terrorist recruitment strategy and gain more support, finances etc. That could be the reasoning behind the recent attacks we see in several places.

 

On another note, one of my favorite cartoonists (87 year old Albert Uderzo, creator of Asterix the Gaul) came out of retirement to pay tribute to Charlie: 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/charlie-hebdo-asterix-creator-albert-uderzo-comes-out-of-retirement-to-draw-je-suis-charlie-cartoon-9968835.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ashley, once again, you said it all so well. Taking them to court and attempting to sue them would have been acceptable and reasonable. Killing people is not. To me, this is definitely about religion. We didn't see any other group or religion committing this act of terror. It's not as if Buddhists did this. 

 

Looking forward to looking at the Uderzo comics. We have most of the Asterix books. 

 

BTW, the Muslims and taken Charlie Hebdo to court before.  They used French Hate Laws as any normal "reasonable" people would.  Amazingly enough, Muslims are reasonable too.

 

You saw three Muslims out of 1.6 billion do this.  They claimed their faith was behind it, but numerous well-respected scholars of that faith say that there actions were totally contrary to what is allowed in that faith.  Two of the earliest condemnations of the attacks came from the Arab League and Al Azhar University.

 

Yesterday, near where a live, a man threw his daughter off of a gigantic bridge.  Before he did it, he was apparently saying he was having a religious experience and went to a local church to be baptized.  Should I blame Christianity for his actions?

 

Dr. George Tiller had received numerous threats.... his clinic was firebombed....and finally he was executed by an extremist.  These things all happened from Far Right Christians, BTW.  Not Muslims.  They believe that their faith allows such things.  There are even countries where abortions are illegal, so obviously it's OK for them to impose those laws elsewhere, right?

 

Jewish extremists killed Rabin...does that reflect on all of Judaism? Even if they felt it was justified by their faith?

 

A Christian White Supremacist massacred the Sikhs in Wisconsin? He felt his religion and beliefs justified it.  So should I blame all Christians?

 

Oh...and Buddhists have been massacring Rohingya Muslims for quite a few years.  Almost exactly one year ago, they slaughtered 40 people....including beheadings.  These were peaceful Buddhists, though...right?  http://uscampaignforburma.org/about-burma/conflict-and-human-rights/rohingya-ethnic-cleansing.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 France and most of the Western world does not have to succumb to Sharia law. All the cultural and religious differences in the world do not justify acts of terror and even censorship. 

 

 

^^ This cannot be repeated often enough. 

 

If it is, indeed, a peaceful religion, then the violence is more blasphemous to that religion that any cartoon could ever be.  If that religion's leaders do not take ACTION to STOP. THE. VIOLENCE perpetuated in its name, then they will be allowing the religion to be dragged down to its lowest common denominator. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lisa and Sadie, I'm really interested in this debate. I still consider myself a fairly religious person, but it is increasingly important to me that I live in a secular society. While I would never hurt someone's feelings IRL or on the internet, I think it is important not to let offended feelings trump free expression in the marketplace of ideas.  

 

Over the last months, my kids and I have been listening to a couple of Great Courses, one on Voltaire and another on the French Revolution. We have been talking a lot about how the history of secularism and the importance of the press and satire may have a different context in France than in the US. Can anyone comment on that? It seems to me that to say the Charlie Hebdo folks should not have printed their cartoons (e.g. Nick Kristof, who I usually like) could be asking French culture to give up some things that they view as essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muslims, on the whole, are not usually violent either. They make up nearly a quarter of the work's population.

 

Autocorrect is attacking me today, too. ;)

 

This is a good post from Prof. Juan Cole at the University of Michigan. I wish I could quote the whole thing...but....

 

"As for Christianity, the LordĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s Resistance Army in Uganda initiated hostilitiesthat displaced two million people. Although it is an African cult, it is Christian in origin and the result of Western Christian missionaries preaching in Africa. If Saudi Wahhabi preachers can be in part blamed for the Taliban, why do Christian missionaries skate when we consider the blowback from their pupils?

 

Despite the very large number of European Muslims, in 2007-2009 less than 1 percent of terrorist acts in that continent were committed by people from that community.

Terrorism is a tactic of extremists within each religion, and within secular religions of Marxism or nationalism. No religion, including Islam, preaches indiscriminate violence against innocents.

It takes a peculiar sort of blindness to see Christians of European heritage as Ă¢â‚¬Å“niceĂ¢â‚¬ and Muslims and inherently violent, given the twentieth century death toll I mentioned above. Human beings are human beings and the species is too young and too interconnected to have differentiated much from group to group. People resort to violence out of ambition or grievance, and the more powerful they are, the more violence they seem to commit. The good news is that the number of wars is declining over time, and World War II, the biggest charnel house in history, hasnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t been repeated."

 

http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/terrorism-other-religions.html

 

 

"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ This cannot be repeated often enough.

 

If it is, indeed, a peaceful religion, then the violence is more blasphemous to that religion that any cartoon could ever be. If that religion's leaders do not take ACTION to STOP. THE. VIOLENCE perpetuated in its name, then they will be allowing the religion to be dragged down to its lowest common denominator.

So, what actions do you propose that religious leaders in India or the US or elsewhere take to stop French citizens from traveling to an AQ training camp in some remote part of the world? The US military hasn't even been able to totally stop it, despite bombings and raids and other military interventions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://m.ibtimes.com/saudi-blogger-raif-badawi-publicly-flogged-insulting-islam-1778528

 

This is horrifying. A man received the first of dozens of floggings for blasphemy in Saudia Arabia, despite protests from many organizations and countries, including the U.S.

 

How can this still be happening? (That's rhetorical. I don't need an answer from anyone.)

 

And I'm anti-death penalty, just to throw that out there. I feel the same horror that the US still executes people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but once again, France and most of the Western world does not have to succumb to Sharia law. All the cultural and religious differences in the world do not justify acts of terror and even censorship.

 

To be fair and objective, is there any indication these people attributed their actions to furthering the cause of Sharia Law, or just to avenge their religious offenses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piers Morgan's commentary. (Yeah, yeah, I know the Daily Mail is a tabloid.)

 

We need different thinking, smart leadership, effective military action where appropriate, and a firm coalition of global intelligence to thwart the attacks.

But there is a limit to what the West can do on its own.
 

WhatĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s really required right now is for the Muslim world to stand up, be counted and cry: Ă¢â‚¬ËœENOUGH!Ă¢â‚¬â„¢

 

I want to hear the leaders of predominantly Muslim countries, like Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, come out and condemn these murderous bastards, without equivocation.
 

To denounce them as non-Muslims, to urge REAL Muslims Ă¢â‚¬â€œ the vast majority who loathe these extremists as much as we do - to rise up against them, alienate and marginalize them, root them out of their society.
 

In short, I want real Muslims to reclaim their Islam faith and to make it crystal clear that these terrorists donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t act in their name, nor the name of the Prophet Mohammad.

 

I agree. As I stated earlier, I think it is going to take change from within to make real & lasting change for the better.

 

The entire commentary piece is worth reading, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of Muslims I know openly applauded when the WTC went down. They are not *evil* people. They would not have committed the crimes themselves. They are not violent. They do not covet power. Okay, I can't know their hearts, but they're ordinary Americans to all appearances. Still...they didn't view the 9/11 attacks as a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad thing. It was more like "well, America deserves this, so..." I am *not* saying the majority of Muslims feel this way. Umsami's posts give me real hope that they don't. But from my perspective at least it's more than power-hungry sheikhs and disillusioned youth. And it's not necessarily just the religiously zealous...or the I-don't-really-care-about-my-religion-but-killing-people-sounds-cool group. Is it a cultural thing? A religious thing? A historical thing? IDK...I guess I assumed it was religious at the time, and maybe...I hope...I'm wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the links that umsami has posted with quotes from many, many Muslim leaders decrying varying acts of terrorism? They do this. It doesn't get heard in the west because that isn't what gets viewers.

 

Yes, I have read the links. I have read the quotes.

 

I still think the best hope of positive change has to come from within the religion itself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the Muslims and taken Charlie Hebdo to court before.  They used French Hate Laws as any normal "reasonable" people would.  Amazingly enough, Muslims are reasonable too.

No doubt.

 

You saw three Muslims out of 1.6 billion do this.  They claimed their faith was behind it, but numerous well-respected scholars of that faith say that there actions were totally contrary to what is allowed in that faith.  Two of the earliest condemnations of the attacks came from the Arab League and Al Azhar University.

No True Scotsman again. We can find numerous scholars of the faith who are well respected by other Muslims who support this kind of action, have supported it in the past, and support it today. They cite holy texts and historical president as well as lots of academic time and effort put into the subject. You don't agree with it. Most western Muslims don't agree with it. It doesn't make it "not Islam." It just makes it "not your Islam."

 

Yesterday, near where a live, a man threw his daughter off of a gigantic bridge.  Before he did it, he was apparently saying he was having a religious experience and went to a local church to be baptized.  Should I blame Christianity for his actions?

If Christianity contained a theological argument that included dropping children off bridges, yes.

 

Dr. George Tiller had received numerous threats.... his clinic was firebombed....and finally he was executed by an extremist.  These things all happened from Far Right Christians, BTW.  Not Muslims.  They believe that their faith allows such things.  There are even countries where abortions are illegal, so obviously it's OK for them to impose those laws elsewhere, right?

Christianity does contain a theological argument that supports killing those who offend God. It's just fallen out of favor for so long, most people don't know it, and the moral code invoked by society in general doesn't condone it, so most Christians wouldn't think of it. That's not true in Islam today. That's not to say which version is right or wrong. I don't think there is a right or wrong. Interpreting religious texts and history is not unlike interpreting poetry or art - it is as subjective as the unique experiences of each individual doing the interpreting.

 

Jewish extremists killed Rabin...does that reflect on all of Judaism? Even if they felt it was justified by their faith?

Black or white fallacy. A behavior doesn't have to reflect on the entire religious population to be recognized as a component of the religion itself.

 

Whether or not the rest of the religious population accepts the reasons determines if it was justified or not.

 

It opens up the question, what does it mean for a behavior to be justified by the religion, except for being justified by the religious community at the time? Look to the Catholic Crusades to watch Christians distance themselves from what was, during that point in history, normal, Christian stuff, believed to be perfectly justified, if not blessed by God himself. What does that mean about the community today? If in 600 years Christians don't acknowledge moder Christian behavior, does that mean they aren't really Christians?

 

A Christian White Supremacist massacred the Sikhs in Wisconsin? He felt his religion and beliefs justified it.  So should I blame all Christians?

You could blame him, and recognize his motivation was due to his genuine Christian beliefs, and horrifyingly in line with certain parts of the bible. See above comment for the impossible task of determining which individual or community gets to decide if it was justified.

 

Oh...and Buddhists have been massacring Rohingya Muslims for quite a few years.  Almost exactly one year ago, they slaughtered 40 people....including beheadings.  These were peaceful Buddhists, though...right?  http://uscampaignforburma.org/about-burma/conflict-and-human-rights/rohingya-ethnic-cleansing.html

Exactly. One of the fundamental problems with religious faith is that it erodes empathy. Not for everyone. Not against everyone. But it does exist to identify the in group from the rest of humanity, and our brains naturally empathize more with kin and community. We know this now. We can do something with this knowledge now. Blaming individual people doesn't get us anywhere. At best, we take our revenge out on the perpetrators of an act of violence. At the worst, we develop stereotypes and draw more divisive lines between "us" and "them," prophylacticly targeting "them." When enough people are sufficiently horrified, the direction of social pressures change, and people start modifying their ideas about what is justifiable. In Islam today, we can't avoid the fact that many Muslims in the world do not agree with western European and American Muslims. Pew Report has a helpful article showing The WorldĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lisa and Sadie, I'm really interested in this debate. I still consider myself a fairly religious person, but it is increasingly important to me that I live in a secular society. While I would never hurt someone's feelings IRL or on the internet, I think it is important not to let offended feelings trump free expression in the marketplace of ideas.  

 

Over the last months, my kids and I have been listening to a couple of Great Courses, one on Voltaire and another on the French Revolution. We have been talking a lot about how the history of secularism and the importance of the press and satire may have a different context in France than in the US. Can anyone comment on that? It seems to me that to say the Charlie Hebdo folks should not have printed their cartoons (e.g. Nick Kristof, who I usually like) could be asking French culture to give up some things that they view as essential.

 

I agree with you, and now I want to watch those courses! Can you link which ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of Muslims I know openly applauded when the WTC went down. They are not *evil* people. They would not have committed the crimes themselves. They are not violent. They do not covet power. Okay, I can't know their hearts, but they're ordinary Americans to all appearances. Still...they didn't view the 9/11 attacks as a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad thing. It was more like "well, America deserves this, so..." I am *not* saying the majority of Muslims feel this way. Umsami's posts give me real hope that they don't. But from my perspective at least it's more than power-hungry sheikhs and disillusioned youth. And it's not necessarily just the religiously zealous...or the I-don't-really-care-about-my-religion-but-killing-people-sounds-cool group. Is it a cultural thing? A religious thing? A historical thing? IDK...I guess I assumed it was religious at the time, and maybe...I hope...I'm wrong. 

 

Where do you live and how do you know these Muslims?  How did they openly applaud what happened on 9/11?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of Muslims I know openly applauded when the WTC went down. They are not *evil* people. They would not have committed the crimes themselves. They are not violent. They do not covet power. Okay, I can't know their hearts, but they're ordinary Americans to all appearances. Still...they didn't view the 9/11 attacks as a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad thing. It was more like "well, America deserves this, so..." 

 

I call BS on this.  Total and utter BS.

 

Love to know where you know and how well you know these supposed people.  I don't know of any Muslims who would be that stupid to volunteer that information if that's how they truly felt...but then again, I don't know anybody who would say such a thing or think it regardless.  It was an utter horrific tragedy.   Remember, Muslims and those who some thought were Muslims were being attacked and killed after the attacks.  So, why on earth would somebody applaud?

 

Did I hear some conspiracy theories? Yup...from both my Muslim and non-Muslim friends.  Did I hear anybody who openly applauded? Absolutely not.  All I saw and heard was utter complete horror and condemnation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, and now I want to watch those courses! Can you link which ones?

 

Voltaire and the Triumph of the Enlightenment

 

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/voltaire-and-the-triumph-of-the-enlightenment.html

 

Living the French Revolution and the Age of Napoleon

 

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/living-the-french-revolution-and-the-age-of-napoleon.html

 

I enjoyed the French Revolution one more -- what a time to see the best and worst of human nature! should be an HBO series -- but they are both good. We listened to them on Audible which worked fine -- somehow we get to those more than the DVD versions. My 12 year old found the Voltaire one too dry, but he liked the FR one. I think I've transferred my obsession with that time period to him. My older son is studying Voltaire/Montaigne/the Enlightenment/Tale of Two Cities for school and they're both studying French, so we have found these current events to be very thought-provoking in that way when studies and real life intersect, and it all seems so relevant. Just a very sad way for that to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call BS on this.  Total and utter BS.

 

Love to know where you know and how well you know these supposed people.  I don't know of any Muslims who would be that stupid to volunteer that information if that's how they truly felt...but then again, I don't know anybody who would say such a thing or think it regardless.  It was an utter horrific tragedy.   Remember, Muslims and those who some thought were Muslims were being attacked and killed after the attacks.  So, why on earth would somebody applaud?

 

Did I hear some conspiracy theories? Yup...from both my Muslim and non-Muslim friends.  Did I hear anybody who openly applauded? Absolutely not.  All I saw and heard was utter complete horror and condemnation.  

 

Aargh! I lost my post again! :( To begin again...

 

Oh, Umsami... I am very, very sorry for the pain and hurt you have to go through every time these attacks occur. I appreciate your posts. Your perspective has given me a greater respect & appreciation for Muslims in general - and a sympathy for the horrible things they are experiencing around the world as well. I understand the frustration/pain/hurt that I sense in your post. I apologize for the frustration/pain/hurt I have cause you.

 

I reread my post, and I can see how I implied that I had a number of Muslim friends...I don't. I wasn't trying to make it sound like I have knowledge/experience enough to make sweeping remarks about Muslims...just that from my *limited* perspective (I *don't* know many Muslims...and so it's hard when the ones I *do* know have these sentiments...) there are Muslims who were *not* disappointed that 9/11 happened. Not that they were glad people died. But they were glad that America got what she 'deserved', so to speak. The "openly applauded" was probably too strong a word choice. I'm rushing to sneak a sentence or two in here & there between diaper changes, cooking, quick-clean-up-b4-Daddy-gets-home, etc. I should wait to post things like this until I have more time...

 

I have two friends whose fathers are Muslim - one more religious than the other. They both expressed the "America deserves it" to their families. I know a man who was shadowed by the FBI after 9/11 b/c he was believed to have connections with terrorists. He's in jail today for aiding & abetting terrorists. I personally have a hard time believing that he really did...and his family vehemently denies it. But he was *not* sorry when the Towers went down. I think that's why he was targeted by the FBI. He was a more devout Muslim. My brother just talked to a Muslim man a couple days ago who told him that Americans & Christians are "food for dogs" (his words)...and I have gotten that sentiment a handful of times since 9/11. I live in NYC.

 

I can't answer the why. Discovery Channel ran a documentary a couple years after 9/11 that asked the same question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think someone who is in jail for aiding terrorists is probably a good example of a devout Muslim.

 

I have a good friend from high school who converted to Islam. Her husband is from *India* where *many* moderate Muslims live (more than all of the people who live in Pakistan). India is our ally. We aren't at war with Muslims. We have been at war with *terrorists*. My dh has personally gone and fought in combat multiple times, starting in 2002. But, we have Muslim friends (multiple). We know Muslims who are serving in the military alongside dh.

 

It has been my experience that anti-US sentiment has a lot more to do with geography and politics than it does religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think someone who is in jail for aiding terrorists is probably a good example of a devout Muslim.

 

I have a good friend from high school who converted to Islam. Her husband is from *India* where *many* moderate Muslims live (more than all of the people who live in Pakistan). India is our ally. We aren't at war with Muslims. We have been at war with *terrorists*. My dh has personally gone and fought in combat multiple times, starting in 2002. But, we have Muslim friends (multiple). We know Muslims who are serving in the military alongside dh.

 

It has been my experience that anti-US sentiment has a lot more to do with geography and politics than it does religion.

 

Geography & politics...you're probably right. Thanks.

 

Yes. I think the sentiments I mentioned are more anti-US than pro-terrorism. So umsami could still be right about radical sheikhs/disillusioned youth being the terrorist-proponents...not broader than that... 

 

My apologies, all. I am happy to stand corrected. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what actions do you propose that religious leaders in India or the US or elsewhere take to stop French citizens from traveling to an AQ training camp in some remote part of the world? The US military hasn't even been able to totally stop it, despite bombings and raids and other military interventions.

 

 

I said so, in my first post in this thread.  I think religious leaders need to take actions that affect the religious status of the violent members.  What is the muslim equivalent of excommunication?  Or sanctions or edicts?   More violence is the last thing I'd want to see. Bombing the shit out anyone is a filthy and disgusting response no matter who you are or who they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have known many who feel this way. Many Muslims and non-Muslims who felt that the U.S. got what they deserved. I have given up hope on trying to reason or see sense in them. They feel the same about the U.S. and Israel. It angers me and breaks my heart. If someone doesn't like the government, they have a choice to leave. 

 

My guess is what you were hearing, and don't seem to acknowledge, is that there are those who say the US's foreign policy contributes to terrorist attacks.  Does it mean that individual innocent citizens deserve to die? Absolutely not.   Remember, we've had a policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" for quite some time.  That's why Reagan was actively involved in arming/training the muhajideen/Taliban in Afghanistan.  That's why we helped Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the Iraq vs. Iran war.   The sanctions against Iraq after the first Gulf War killed roughly 100,000 children.  They were just as innocent as those killed on 9/11.   Our drones kill innocent men, women, and children all.the.time.  

 

No, I do not support Israel's stealing of Palestinian land.  I do not support Israel spying on us either.  I do not support the influence that a foreign government has over our congress through AIPAC.  I do not support Israel's use of white phosphorus on people.  I do not support their attacking known UN shelters during wars.  I do not support their saying FU to the United States every time we ask them to stop settlement building, and they still do.   I do not and never will.  I suggest you read the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War.  It was written by a Jewish South African judge who worked to undermine apartheid, and was the chief prosecutor for the crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.  BTW, he found faults on both sides..but Israel and its best friend the US did everything to try and squash the report.  People often say that the Palestinians are the problems during peace negations.  For that, I suggest you look at the Palestinian Papers, which showed how much the Palestinians were willing to give up for peace.   I do not condone Hamas's actions, nor do I condone the actions of the IDF.  I do not condone the killing of citizens on either side.  I truly think that the nicest thing the Americans could do would be to try something different with Israel, cut off aid, and pressure them towards peace along 1967 boarders.  Asking nicely while still giving $3 billion/year to a very robust economy has done nothing.  But then again, cynical me says that the US military complex doesn't really want peace, because a good portion of the aid we give to Israel and Egypt comes back to US military manufacturers.  

 

Having said all that, I'm not sure this is the time to go into Israeli-Palestinian politics.  There are French Jews mourning their family members today after the hostage taking at the Kosher Supermarket.  So, I'm rather upset at myself for getting into all that.  But yes, US international foreign policy does affect how people feel about us.  We will feel the repercussions of the Iraq War and Syrian conflict (which are linked) for decades, I fear.  We did not learn the lessons of the British, who carved up the region after WWI to disastrous results.  

 

As for excommunication, as Rosie pointed out, that doesn't exist in Islam.  There is no Pope or other head religious figure in Sunni Islam.  There is nobody who can kick somebody out of the faith for what they do.  Their actions may do that regardless, but that is up to God to decide, not for man.  

 

After the bombing in India, the Muslim community refused to allow the terrorists to be buried in the Muslim cemetery.  That was considered a big deal....to refuse them a Muslim funeral.  I could see the French Muslim community doing something similar, but once again, that's after the fact.  I'm not sure how effective that is in deterring future terrorists.... especially if they plan to blow themselves up, thus there's no body to bury anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a reply to anyone, but I wanted to say that it is completely unacceptable that anti-Semitic violence continues. My Jewish friends IRL are hurting that this never ends, that they are so often (feels like always) a target. Not able to do a simple thing like food shopping. I don't want to sound like I am only angry about the cartoonists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the latter, but honestly, at this point, and if your friend/family member was one of those killed, would you honestly care? It really doesn't matter does it? Not to me anyway. 

 

In the context of having a calm, reasonable discussion online, I would. And I do. I learned about the French "no go zones" which is where the Muslim presence has essentially established a functional autonomy from France. Police won't go in, firefighters may or may not come in. The Muslims are the final authority in those areas. Then again, I wonder if there are places in American cities where the police don't go, so I don't know what the variables are. I suspect that wouldn't happen in the US. There's a kind of security in paranoia. Too bad the paranoia renders us insecure elsewhere, but I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too am horrified at the actions of these hate-filled fanatics and my heart goes out to the families of the victims. 

However what also upsets me is the total lack of coverage for what they are doing around the world to others, especially Christians.  We never hear about the rampant slaughter that is going on elsewhere. 

Why are we not hearing about these stories:

These are just 6 stories out of thousands that you can read about on Voice of the Martyrs website.  There are currently 57 countries that persecute those who are non-Muslim.  In addition, the radical Muslim religion is overtaking Europe at an alarming rate and is expected to become the dominant religion by the next generation.  WeĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re not talking about moderates here.  The brand of Islam that is sweeping Europe wants Sharia law for the whole region.  They are actually demanding it.   Reference: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4112/islamization-britain

 

ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s not about whether youĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re Christian or not (although to the radical Islamists, Christians are the worst).  ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s whether youĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re Muslim or not.  If you donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t convert Ă¢â‚¬â€œ you die; simple as that.  Even moderate Muslims are not guaranteed safety because if youĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re too moderate, you can be considered an apostate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And if you cry no true scotsman, Al, I'm going to scream! They *are* outside the scope of Islam. It would be like having a chair made our of wood....and someone hands it to you and tells you it's made out of rock. And you're like "I can clearly see it is made out of wood. Wood has the following properties.....and this chair is CLEARly made out of wood." And someone jumping in like, "YOU say it's made out of wood, but HE says it's made out of not-wood. Either of you could be correct." False. There are qualities that make a Muslim and wanton violence is in direct opposition to them. Period.

 

 

The standards for determining who is inside or outside of the scope of Islam don't seem to be applied consistently. The copy editor's name was the sole basis for umsami's claim that he must have been a Muslim. I haven't seen any other sources that made that claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can not even begin to understand what you want us to do.

 

Good question. Notice no one is demanding American Christians to clean up the problem of Christian, right winged, conservative terrorism at home (the biggest terrorist threat in the US). The problem isn't Islam specifically, in my opinion anyway. The problem is religious terrorism, which is directly linked to religious beliefs that include the idea of an eternal reward or punishment based on the loyalty one has (or refuses) to a divine person who just so happens to live just out of reach of all our senses, and must therefore be accepted by faith. Terrorism is effective. It just is. There's no denying that. In behavioral conditioning, we talk about finding an alternative, socially appropriate behavior to replace a socially inappropriate one. Well, the first thing you need to do is find the function of the behavior so you can determine which alternatives are possible. This is something our governments seem unwilling to do. They're uninterested because either it takes too much time, or it detracts from immediate gains, or the paranoia is high enough to dismiss the value of the process, or there is a complete ignorance among our elected officials as to the value of research, data, and critical analysis of such, and they've been rewarded for acting on gut instincts (fear, desire to secure profit).

 

On some other thread UmSami and I both linked an open letter by a huge list of modern scholars decrying violence that cites Islam. They listed point by point by point why violence of that sort automatically puts one outside the scope of Islam.

 

 According to this yearĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s Global Terrorism Index, the majority (66%) of religious terrorist attacks were attributable to just four groups: Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qaida (last link). You can distance yourself all you want, but your argument is flawed, and those of us not personally invested in ignoring this fallacy aren't persuaded by it, even if we do respect the sincerity of your desire to be understood and recognized as a decent, peaceful, kind, compassionate, faithful Muslim.

 

So what do we as a community, as a nation do? Ignoring the facts, dismissing them, excusing them will not help. But then, neither you or I are elected officials, are we? Well, our one puny vote does count for something. We can continue to support efforts that expose oppression and tyranny. We can continue to openly criticize, and even mock and ridicule absurd beliefs, and defy the respect demanded of oppressive regimes. Je sui Charlie, right? For what it's worth, anyway. Hopefully none of us will be targeted by other groups, or our own governments. Until then anyway, the words will continue to be spoken.

 

And if you cry no true scotsman, Al, I'm going to scream! They *are* outside the scope of Islam.

 

Then you do not understand the logical fallacy or what it means and how it applies. I'm not correlating you, umsami or any other Muslim to violent people. I'm speaking about the arguments clearly present in the Muslim religion, supported by a sizable number of practicing, self-identified Muslims. You don't have to accept their faith as compatible to yours, and you don't even have to acknowledge them as Muslims, but there's no logical reason for the rest of us to ignore it.

 

It would be like having a chair made our of wood....and someone hands it to you and tells you it's made out of rock. And you're like "I can clearly see it is made out of wood. Wood has the following properties.....and this chair is CLEARly made out of wood." And someone jumping in like, "YOU say it's made out of wood, but HE says it's made out of not-wood. Either of you could be correct." False. There are qualities that make a Muslim and wanton violence is in direct opposition to them. Period.

 

A logical argument cannot be won by claiming "period," and the problem is with the logic of your argument. There's no authority to your statement because you are not the arbiter of Real Islam. No one is, and no one can be. It's no more possible than to be the arbiter or Christianity or Judaism. The most one can be is the authority within a community. But individuals in that community are free to come and go, so the authority is granted only so long as people accept it.

 

What you do have, just like Christians and Jews, is a written source to which you refer. That source does, very clearly, contain elements that support and even advocate violence in certain conditions. One of those conditions is blaspheme against your god or your prophet. You may interpret those differently, but for the same reason you are not compelled to accept a violent interpretation, others are not compelled to accept a nonviolent interpretation. You each get to decide for yourselves. You each get to decide which person is the best source of authority on the very issues that most people cannot feasibly devote the time and effort to do themselves. We can't all be learned masters of the history of various scholarly works, so we find those who seem most capable, and decide whether or not we can trust them to be familiar with the details we don't know. That's how we all do this. It's like a division of labor with regard to education, history, philosophy, and religious theology. Each person gets to find the service that suits her best.

 

But as much as you may find a particular instructor or leader admirable, others identify other instructors or leaders admirable. And because the quran is open for interpretation, there is no objective measure by which you can prove your interpretation is correct and theirs is not. And the same privilege is extended to you. As much as some ultra-conservative community in France may think you're not a Real Muslim because you dismiss certain sections of your texts, you don't have to accept that as being binding on your faith, your identity as a Muslim, your ability to worship in your faith as you personally see best, or your privilege to raise your children to do the same.

 

That's why I likened it to reading poetry or looking at art. Everyone refers to the same objective source, but each interpretation is subjectively made. There is no "right way" to look A Sunday on La Grande Jatte, by Georges Seurat. Consequently, there is no wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too am horrified at the actions of these hate-filled fanatics and my heart goes out to the families of the victims. 

However what also upsets me is the total lack of coverage for what they are doing around the world to others, especially Christians.  We never hear about the rampant slaughter that is going on elsewhere. 

Why are we not hearing about these stories:

These are just 6 stories out of thousands that you can read about on Voice of the Martyrs website.  There are currently 57 countries that persecute those who are non-Muslim.  In addition, the radical Muslim religion is overtaking Europe at an alarming rate and is expected to become the dominant religion by the next generation.  WeĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re not talking about moderates here.  The brand of Islam that is sweeping Europe wants Sharia law for the whole region.  They are actually demanding it.   Reference: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4112/islamization-britain

 

 

Is this a Dump Everything That We Fear About Islam thread now?

 

:huh:

 

This is totally off topic, and offensively so.

 

And that's coming from an anti-theist. That's like, dividing by zero or something!

 

ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s not about whether youĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re Christian or not (although to the radical Islamists, Christians are the worst).  ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s whether youĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re Muslim or not.  If you donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t convert Ă¢â‚¬â€œ you die; simple as that.  Even moderate Muslims are not guaranteed safety because if youĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re too moderate, you can be considered an apostate.

 

Clearly, if you spend the time to understand the details of the situation, it's not as simple as that. Not even a little.

 

I would suggest you find another audience for this kind of commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too am horrified at the actions of these hate-filled fanatics and my heart goes out to the families of the victims. 

However what also upsets me is the total lack of coverage for what they are doing around the world to others, especially Christians.  We never hear about the rampant slaughter that is going on elsewhere. 

Why are we not hearing about these stories:

These are just 6 stories out of thousands that you can read about on Voice of the Martyrs website.  There are currently 57 countries that persecute those who are non-Muslim.  In addition, the radical Muslim religion is overtaking Europe at an alarming rate and is expected to become the dominant religion by the next generation.  WeĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re not talking about moderates here.  The brand of Islam that is sweeping Europe wants Sharia law for the whole region.  They are actually demanding it.   Reference: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4112/islamization-britain

 

ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s not about whether youĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re Christian or not (although to the radical Islamists, Christians are the worst).  ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s whether youĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re Muslim or not.  If you donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t convert Ă¢â‚¬â€œ you die; simple as that.  Even moderate Muslims are not guaranteed safety because if youĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re too moderate, you can be considered an apostate.

Bolding mine.

 

Because Islamist Extremists have a monopoly on killing those that won't convert? And it's especially relevant to cover when Christians are attacked?  Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, this is not the case.

 

Albeto:

 

 

 

This is exactly why we have had scholars for thousands of years exploring and re-exploring these issues.

I used to say the same exact thing when defending Catholic theology.

 

Waging war, or violence of any kind, is absolutely, unequivocally NOT up for ijtihad. Even if you are engaged in what is known as a just war (which nothing happening right now is deemed by the ulema to be a "just war"--it's a specific term for a specific thing) you have to have your parent's enthusiastic permission to fight in it if they are alive, regardless of your age.

Your 21st century, western civilization interpretation is showing. And it isn't shared by others who defer to the same faith. This is the problem with logical fallacies; it dismisses information by virtue of confirmation bias, appealing only to that which confirms your argument (I mean that in the Socratic sense, not a discussion fueled by animosity).

 

ETA-Here's some videos about scholars in Islam. It's been a long time since I've watched them and they are pretty old, but for whatever it's worth, Sh. Hamza Yusuf is someone I've met and trust as much as I can trust someone who isn't me.

A quick poke around youtube will show your opinion is not universal. Those who disagree with you use your same methods you do to come to their conclusions, namely, they read, they study, they worship, they pray, they think critically, they seek out those who know more. In the absence of an objective resource, subjective opinions are all that's left. This isn't unique to Islam, it's true of all things that lack an objective resource by which one can measure the accuracy of their opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume everyone is aware that Sharia Law explicitly demands that Muslims follow the law of any land they find themselves in.

 

A longer explanation by Imam Zaid Shakur here.

 

And one more to the point.

 

I only learned that from here (I think earlier in this thread?). So thanks for sharing these things. It's good info to know. At the same time, I've been told by faithful Christians here that they will proudly ignore the law of the land if it prevents them from worshiping their god as they think he wills. So, there's that whole "law of god is more important than law of the land" idea that seems to be a source of pride in some number of religious faithful. Clearly it exists in Islam as well, as the no-go zones in France show. Like any other theological argument in these religions, it's only as pertinent as the individual who uses or dismisses it believes it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is what you were hearing, and don't seem to acknowledge, is that there are those who say the US's foreign policy contributes to terrorist attacks. Does it mean that individual innocent citizens deserve to die? Absolutely not. Remember, we've had a policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" for quite some time. That's why Reagan was actively involved in arming/training the muhajideen/Taliban in Afghanistan. That's why we helped Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the Iraq vs. Iran war. The sanctions against Iraq after the first Gulf War killed roughly 100,000 children. They were just as innocent as those killed on 9/11. Our drones kill innocent men, women, and children all.the.time.

 

No, I do not support Israel's stealing of Palestinian land. I do not support Israel spying on us either. I do not support the influence that a foreign government has over our congress through AIPAC. I do not support Israel's use of white phosphorus on people. I do not support their attacking known UN shelters during wars. I do not support their saying FU to the United States every time we ask them to stop settlement building, and they still do. I do not and never will. I suggest you read the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War. It was written by a Jewish South African judge who worked to undermine apartheid, and was the chief prosecutor for the crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. BTW, he found faults on both sides..but Israel and its best friend the US did everything to try and squash the report. People often say that the Palestinians are the problems during peace negations. For that, I suggest you look at the Palestinian Papers, which showed how much the Palestinians were willing to give up for peace. I do not condone Hamas's actions, nor do I condone the actions of the IDF. I do not condone the killing of citizens on either side. I truly think that the nicest thing the Americans could do would be to try something different with Israel, cut off aid, and pressure them towards peace along 1967 boarders. Asking nicely while still giving $3 billion/year to a very robust economy has done nothing. But then again, cynical me says that the US military complex doesn't really want peace, because a good portion of the aid we give to Israel and Egypt comes back to US military manufacturers.

 

Having said all that, I'm not sure this is the time to go into Israeli-Palestinian politics. There are French Jews mourning their family members today after the hostage taking at the Kosher Supermarket. So, I'm rather upset at myself for getting into all that. But yes, US international foreign policy does affect how people feel about us. We will feel the repercussions of the Iraq War and Syrian conflict (which are linked) for decades, I fear. We did not learn the lessons of the British, who carved up the region after WWI to disastrous results.

 

As for excommunication, as Rosie pointed out, that doesn't exist in Islam. There is no Pope or other head religious figure in Sunni Islam. There is nobody who can kick somebody out of the faith for what they do. Their actions may do that regardless, but that is up to God to decide, not for man.

 

After the bombing in India, the Muslim community refused to allow the terrorists to be buried in the Muslim cemetery. That was considered a big deal....to refuse them a Muslim funeral. I could see the French Muslim community doing something similar, but once again, that's after the fact. I'm not sure how effective that is in deterring future terrorists.... especially if they plan to blow themselves up, thus there's no body to bury anyways.

I just lost the respect I had for you. While I understand your frustration about Muslims are portrayed, much of what you posted above is once again excusing the extremists and trying to excuse their actions. We get it. It is everyone else's fault the Islamic extremists have been allowed to roll unchecked in a certain part of the world over and over and over....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I can not even begin to understand what you want us to do.

 

On some other thread UmSami and I both linked an open letter by a huge list of modern scholars decrying violence that cites Islam. They listed point by point by point why violence of that sort automatically puts one outside the scope of Islam.

 

And if you cry no true scotsman, Al, I'm going to scream! They *are* outside the scope of Islam. It would be like having a chair made our of wood....and someone hands it to you and tells you it's made out of rock. And you're like "I can clearly see it is made out of wood. Wood has the following properties.....and this chair is CLEARly made out of wood." And someone jumping in like, "YOU say it's made out of wood, but HE says it's made out of not-wood. Either of you could be correct." False. There are qualities that make a Muslim and wanton violence is in direct opposition to them. Period.

 

As has been said, there is no excommunication because there is no Pope of Pope figure...nor any of the rest of that whole hierarchy of people.

 

Who is supposed to sanction whom in this case?! Sanctions are government business. Not even dirty, no good Saudi Arabia SPEAKS for Islam...they are a government, and a condemnable one at that. Muslims go there because they control the Kabah, not because they are a beacon of light for humanity, Muslim or otherwise.

 

Edicts? I think the word you're searching for is FATWAS. And you would need to understand just exactly how limited a Fatwa is. A Fatwa is a NEW "legal" ruling. Legal here referring to Sharia law, the MAJORITY of which deals with MANNERS. Not actual legal things.  It's just not the equivalent of our word "law." 

 

In any case, as in the open letter cited above, there have been fatwas against violence. This one was 600 pages long. True Muslim scholars are extremely thorough, citing hadith and Quran, as well as standing fiqh.  **This is important because if you ever hear someone say they issued a fatwa, but they are not LONG TIME scholars of jurisprudence, then they can not possibly know wtf they are talking about.

 

General condenation??? Sadie asked upthread about the "Progressive Islam response." Here that is. Hint: it's basically exactly the same as the "regular Muslim response" (abhorrence and condemnation) but with language pushing the progressive agenda to the forefront, as one would expect. [i would loveto see that embraced by more folks, so I'm on board with that agenda]

 

As an individual person I am soo beyond disappointed in so many people right now. People like you keep telling me that people like me ought to be DOING something. WHAT IN THE HELL DO YOU WANT US TO DO Audrey? I'm just a regular person. Those people that are doing bad thing and citing islam have as little to do with **me** as they do you. Do YOU feel connected in some way, outsde of sharing the planet with them for a short time, to Boko Haram? Who just killed over 2000 people, mostly kids, women and old people?! DO YOU? What are YOU gonna do about that????

 

**edited to fix the links

 

 

What do I want YOU to do?  Unless you are a religious LEADER then simply go about living your non-violent life.  LEADERS, as I said very specifically, have a greater obligation to the faith.  And, prepare to scream away, because the argument of the violence being outside the mainstream is No True Scotsman.  Leaders of a faith whose name is being besmirched have a responsibility to address that indignity being perpetrated upon them and their faithful.  If your religion doesn't have a means to excommunicate, then what does it have?  If it doesn't have something that causes some real action upon the violent ones, (without resorting to more violence), then maybe something should be developed. 

 

And to your last bit... I think you can pipe down your screeching rhetoric and back the heck up. You do not know me and you have no idea how intensely involved I am in the global justice movement.  I have immense sympathy for any group of people who are being oppressed and whose dignity is being ravaged by violence.  That includes Islam.  Where this all outrages me is not with the people themselves, but with their leaders (as I CLEARLY STATED) -- leaders who far too often spend inordinate amounts of time talking and infinitesimal amounts of time DOING anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That you want to give equal weight to the religious arguments of extremists, and non-extremeists  does not make your argument more balanced. You are saying the same things to me that proponents of increased violence say.  You are being a Bill O'Reilley.  In Islam we accept the Quran, teh Sunnah and the fiqh. That's where the answers to these questions come from...not from me personally.

I'm not giving equal weight to different religious arguments. I'm saying there is no objective source by which anyone can measure the accuracy of their arguments to Real Islam, because Real Islam is no more a Real Thing than Real Christianity, Real Judaism, Real Astrology, Real Tea Leaf Readings, Real The Secret. These are all subjectively determined. Having said that, there are absolutely some arguments more logical and more socially appropriate than others. I've made no comment to the contrary.

 

I am picturing you walking into a teaching hospital and handing out pamphlets to let the medical students there know that there are different opinions about how to best treat cancer, so they can never objectively trust their teachers because there exist differing opinions.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There are objective factors in the treatment of cancer. New facts are uncovered every day. Of course people draw conclusions where there is no objective fact, or where that fact is not known by the individual. Clearly some draw more reasonable conclusions than others.

 

With regard to religion, I find this argumentation to be identical to the creationist argument. You cannot convince a Christian who believes in a 6000 year old earth that their belief is invalid or based on wrong information. They value different variables than the liberal Christian who recognizes the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years. Their faith isn't wrong, it doesn't not count, they're not false Christians just because they hold to an argument that is less reasonable than the other.

 

Granted, the differences in the outcomes to these beliefs are excruciatingly vast, but the same argument is used by both "radical Christians" and "radical Muslims" - they accept certain verses in the texts as being accurate *as is.* For the Christian, that includes the six day creation. For the Muslim, this includes killing infidels. Neither one can be accused of being false believers by the same virtue you can't be accused of being a false believer - the belief is genuine, and it's derived in the exact same way yours is. The exact same method.

 

I see "radical" in the same way I see "legalistic." It's another word for, "they accept certain things to be literal whereas I understand them in a different context." It seems to me the only difference between "legalistic" and "radical" is the faith - Christian or Muslim. I would say bloodshed is a difference, but if you see the links I posted earlier, you'll see in the US that's not the case. Blood is shed in the name of the god of the Christian bible, regardless of how vehemently other Christians may cry out against it.

 

Quit conflating your own experience within the church you left with everyone else's on the planet's religious practice.

I'm not conflating my experience, but showing you that it's done regardless of the religion. Each and every person here who defends their theological argument will cite the same exact thing. Keep an eye out for it. It's not hard to miss when you know what you're looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...