Jump to content

Menu

Eleven (11) dead at Paris newspaper after gunmen attack


unsinkable
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

And, not just the religious leaders, but also the governmental leaders of Islamic countries &/or countries where the gov't turns a blind eye to training camps & the like. Creating a 600 page document about religious law isn't cutting it, imo.

 

Who gives the preachers/teachers of radical Islam their power? How to they get clearance to lead a mosque or school? (It's not as if all of the radicals in power are living in democracies that would protect their right to free speech.) Would no-fly lists work in those areas where training camps exist? What if Saudi Arabia denied access to Mecca to known radicals or branches of Islam? What if all moderate Muslims decided to forgo going to Mecca this year in protest of Saudi Arabia's record? Etc.... Hypothetical questions on my part & perhaps some things like these exist already, but I think there needs to be some kind of brainstorming to create real & different action. And, to repeat myself again, I think these types of actions will have the strongest effect & most positive impact when they are changes coming from within the Islamic world (religion & countries) itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's also not going to happen because we can't afford to stop buying oil from them.

 

 

There is the issue of legitimacy in the Gulf monarchies. It is my understanding that they got to be there because the British Empire, in it's wisdom, gave those territories to local rich families. "But the Brits gave you to me last century!" is not going to make anyone feel the love, so they use the appeal to religion method of retaining legitimacy. If they believe their power resides in that, they won't then turn around and shut down mosques. And radicals are going to come out of the mosques, because the government is able to shut down everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am aware of SA's record. Those were hypothetical questions that I was posing in an effort to show that maybe some different ideas and actions are needed. Again, it underscores to me that there are plenty of 'legit' religious and gov't leaders who are supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to, radical Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am aware of SA's record. Those were hypothetical questions that I was posing in an effort to show that maybe some different ideas and actions are needed. Again, it underscores to me that there are plenty of 'legit' religious and gov't leaders who are supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to, radical Islam.

And so is the US and Canada and other western nations. The Saudis are our "allies." WE are propping up that government. It isn't at all a case of Islam propping up that government. And that government is using its immense wealth (UBL is from a wealthy Saudi family) to support terror. Therefore, the west is FAR more complicit in terrorism than moderate Muslims around the globe.

 

ETA: really, think about it. Do you think moderate Muslims in India or Thailand have more power over these things than western governments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so is the US and Canada and other western nations. The Saudis are our "allies." WE are propping up that government. It isn't at all a case of Islam propping up that government. And that government is using its immense wealth (UBL is from a wealthy Saudi family) to support terror. Therefore, the west is FAR more complicit in terrorism than moderate Muslims around the globe.

 

It's a funny old world. We don't like them, they don't like us, but we both need each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it shouldn't be a race to the bottom.

Agreed. I am merely talking about perceptions based upon Rosie's comment about not liking one another. I don't think our actions of building girls' schools and hospitals and new wells and/or killing people who blow up girls's schools or hospitals or poison wells mean that we are in a race to the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. And they don't think we are any more moral or cleaner or less murderous than we think they are. That knife cuts both ways.

 

I fully realize that & agree too. But, imo, what the West has done/is doing is obviously not working very well. It's not as if I'm entirely ignorant of those parts of history/religion/current & past policies/the impact of oil/our interdependence/etc....

 

But, since our influence & actions (past & present) in/from the West seem to not be helping to stem the tide of radical religious belief (& may be inflaming it), I think that true & positive change is going to have to come from within the religion & countries themselves. And, that may take some radical thought changes in & of itself in order to happen. Imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ETA: really, think about it. Do you think moderate Muslims in India or Thailand have more power over these things than western governments?

 

I don't know. But since Western gov't influence & intervention is not seemingly working all that well, I'm positing that perhaps change needs to start from within & maybe some new/different ideas need to be generated from the current status quo. And maybe the ones to come up with some different ideas/actions *that might actually work* would/could be those w/in the religion or the regions where the religion is dominant. Imo.

 

ETA: To go OT a little bit -- I'm sure Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't necessarily look like great candidates as leaders of big change when they started. However, they were both living in the unjust, often violent, areas where they ended up being leaders of big change. So, I guess I'm wondering if history can repeat itself in that respect & if perhaps the most lasting & positive chance we've got for change is change that originates from inside (in this case, the 'inside' being the religion itself)? (And, yes, I'm aware that all the change in the case of Gandhi & MLK Jr. still has problems today.) I'm not saying it's perfect. But, I think it is short-sighted to dismiss the idea outright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Applied by whom? The media? Muslim scholars? Who?  Because there is no head person who determines that.  There are five basic pillars in Islam.  Faith for many is a journey, with varying levels of practicing.  

 

The guy is from Algeria.  His name is Mustapha.  Non-Muslims don't name their kids after the Prophet Muhammad, especially in a Muslim country.  Yves Saint-Laurent was born in Algeria.  His family was French Catholic.  They named him a 100% French name.  Was he a practicing Catholic? No idea.   Was Mustapha a practicing Muslim? No idea, and often times, there are various levels of practicing.   Some Muslims never pray.  Does that still make them Muslim?  Some Muslims drink alcohol, and others do not.  Neither get them automatically outside of Islam, just as Christians who don't tithe are still considered Christians.  Was he culturally Muslim, yes.  If he had been the guy doing the attacks, and his name was Mustapha, would he be automatically stated as a Muslim? Absolutely, 100%.  

 

If it makes you feel better, think of him as a fellow Algerian, as the murderers' parents were from Algeria.  

But it really doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

 

No, it's not excusing their actions...but acting like things happen in a bubble...is ridiculous. (And note that none of those things have to do with Charlie HEbdo as far as I can tell...but they do fuel extremism...and it seems like the brothers had been recruited earlier.  They had also mentioned Abu Ghraib from what I remember as why they went to recruit people to fight against the US and France in Iraq.)  By not wanting to know why extremists do what they do, to me, it's like saying...."OK, yeah....their religion must condone this or must really be so violent that there's no reason needed to get people to do these things."  It doesn't.   Here is a good article from the BBC on war in Islam and when it is justified.  

 

If you knew anything about how they recruit people, you'd know that they use these things online.  We see a sanitized version of the wars we start and actions we support.  That's not the case for the recruiters.  I've seen some of the photos of the people burned by white phosphorus.  I've seen some of the photos from the Gaza conflict, where the US funds the IDF.  I've seen pictures that Palestinian children have drawn in art therapy, and they label the jets USA who kill them and their families.   They love to show pictures of babies and children missing limbs.  The video that started the whole Wikileaks thing....killing first responders.   The Iraqi war victim photos were immense.  The Abu Ghraib photos of torture were horrific, and we saw sanitized versions.  They tell them that Muslims are being attacked and murdered....innocent Muslim children...and it's their duty as Muslims to defend them.  There are videos that show these images over and over again for like hours, and they are very good at brainwashing people to a "revenge" methodology.  

 

There is no excuse for attacking innocent people, be they in a kosher supermarket, a newspaper office, a school, or at a wedding.  None whatsoever.    But when the West is perpetrator or funder of violence against Muslim people, which we sadly have been for at least the past 25 years, you can be sure that it will be used to recruit others towards violence towards the West.  

 

BTW, we did the same thing.  Photos and video of people jumping out of the WTC were very effective recruiting tactics for the armed services here.  People wanted to do something.  More than 3,000 innocent people had been killed.   Do you think the Muslims are any different?  You don't think they want to respond when their innocent people are killed?  They don't use actions against militants as recruiting tools, they pose pictures of dead and mutilated women and children....the elderly...etc.  The innocent.

 

Remember, we bombed Al Jazeera's office in Iraq during the beginning of the war.  Why? Because they were showing/broadcasting images of the carnage that we were inflicted.  We killed innocent journalists with no apologies.  (We also bombed their offices in Kabul too.)  

 

What would I do to combat extremism?  I'd do a lot more humanitarian work in Muslim countries.  We'd be doing a lot more for Syrian refugees...and would have started four years ago.  We'd exert a lot more pressure against the IDF regarding using items condemned worldwide against humans, like white phosphorus.  We'd stop using our veto over everything and anything that criticized Israel in the UN.  Yes, some are ridiculous and should be vetoed, but others actually hold merit.  We'd be viewed as more neutral.  And yes, I would offer funds to the moderate Muslim madhabs and institutions so they could rival the Saudi influence.  It may be too late on that...at least for a generation or two.  

 

But, I think I'm done here.  I'm sure there are plenty on this board who will think that all Muslims are extremists.  Or most or whatever.  I'm tired of being one or two token Muslims trying to explain things.  I lived in Paris.  I'm heart broken.  I'm more heart broken that this was done by people who claim to share my faith--but with whom I find I have nothing in common.  My apartment was on the same metro line as the kosher supermarket that was just attacked.  We used to go to, what was back in the late 80s at least, the quatier Juif at least every few weeks.   This might make for interesting reading for some...I think it basically sums up this thread: http://publicreligion.org/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-and-americans-opinions-of-religious-violence/

 

"PRRI survey found that Americans have a double standard when evaluating violence committed by self-identified Christians and Muslims. More than 8-in-10 (83 percent) Americans say that self-proclaimed Christians who commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity are not really Christians. In contrast, less than half (48 percent) of Americans say that self-proclaimed Muslims who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam are not really Muslims."

 

"Among white evangelical Protestants, the gap is a staggering 47 percentage points: only 10 percent of evangelicals believe that a self-identified Christian perpetrators are really Christian, compared to 57 percent who believe that self-identified Muslim perpetrators are truly Muslim."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Applied by whom? The media? Muslim scholars? Who?  

 

If it makes you feel better, think of him as a fellow Algerian, as the murderers' parents were from Algeria.  

But it really doesn't matter.

 

Primarily I meant as applied by the posters in this thread. The PP I was quoting stated rather emphatically that the murderers were outside of Islam because there are qualities that make a Muslim and they acted in opposition to them. You included the editor as inside Islam based mostly on his name.

 

I agree that it doesn't matter whether he was a Muslim or Algerian, as that has nothing to do with why the killers targeted him. Likewise, I don't think the police officer's religious beliefs are any more relevant to the discussion than those of the other victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Likewise, I don't think the police officer's religious beliefs are any more relevant to the discussion than those of the other victims.

 

You don't think so? People keep saying that moderate Muslims need to stand up to the scary fellas. This guy did, but that's irrelevant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. I feel the same, but I'd wager so do many UK/US/AU Muslims. 

 

I know umsami would, and it's probably getting a bit much for her to have to keep coming back and explaining the above.

 

Blasphemy laws are an abomination.

I agree with this too. However, according to a Washington Post article significant numbers (and not just a fringe minority) of Muslims in the Middle East and some other areas believe these sort of blasphemy laws and stoning and such are OK. I think this a problem to say the least. :crying:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think so? People keep saying that moderate Muslims need to stand up to the scary fellas. This guy did, but that's irrelevant?

 

His duty was to serve and protect, and he died while honorably fulfilling that duty. No, I don't think the fact he was Muslim is any more relevant than the religious beliefs of the other victims—including the other officer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think so? People keep saying that moderate Muslims need to stand up to the scary fellas. This guy did, but that's irrelevant?

 

I don't think he was standing up to them in the name of being a moderate Muslim & was confronting them as radical Muslims. I'm not even sure he knew what he was confronting other than a shooting going on at a place & the call sending him to respond. I don't think he stepped out of his police car quoting religious text or telling them they were religiously wrong. (Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe he appealed to them as a fellow Muslim. But I haven't read or heard anything to that effect.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Thank you for all your links. I look forward to reading them. The lack of coverage is truly disturbing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, I think I'm done here.  I'm sure there are plenty on this board who will think that all Muslims are extremists.  Or most or whatever.  I'm tired of being one or two token Muslims trying to explain things.  I lived in Paris.  I'm heart broken.  I'm more heart broken that this was done by people who claim to share my faith--but with whom I find I have nothing in common.  My apartment was on the same metro line as the kosher supermarket that was just attacked.  We used to go to, what was back in the late 80s at least, the quatier Juif at least every few weeks.   This might make for interesting reading for some...I think it basically sums up this thread: http://publicreligion.org/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-and-americans-opinions-of-religious-violence/

 

"PRRI survey[/size] found that Americans have a double standard when evaluating violence committed by self-identified Christians and Muslims. More than 8-in-10 (83 percent) Americans say that self-proclaimed Christians who commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity are not really Christians. In contrast, less than half (48 percent) of Americans say that self-proclaimed Muslims who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam are not really Muslims."[/size]

 

Among white evangelical Protestants, the gap is a staggering 47 percentage points: only 10 percent of evangelicals believe that a self-identified Christian perpetrators are really Christian, compared to 57 percent who believe that self-identified Muslim perpetrators are truly Muslim."

I'd be interested in seeing one post on this forum that communicates the idea that "all Muslims are extremists." Short of that, I'd be interested in seeing a post from which this inference can be reasonably extrapolated.

 

As far as the double standard, that's not an American thing, or Christian thing. It's a human thing. It's a cognitive bias, a logical blind spot called Inter-group bias. We all have blind spots, but not all the same ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last post....just to give you another picture of a Muslim involved in the terrorist attacks.  This Malian Muslim man saved at least six people (possibly more as he turned off the cold in the freezer) in the Kosher supermarket.  If you feel that the extremists are a true or a valid picture of a good portion of Muslims, I'd argue that he is just as valid of an example....even more so, because his actions can be backed up by Qur'an and ahadith.

 

"Mr Bathily, who reportedly led six people to safety, told BFMTV: 'When they ran down, I opened the door [of the freezer].

'There are several people who came to me. I turned off the light, I turned off the freezer. When I turned off the cold, I put them [hostages] in, I closed the door, I told them to stay calm"




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903829/Saved-hiding-FREEZER-Thirty-Jewish-shoppers-avoided-taken-hostage-kosher-deli-shutting-cold-storage-huddling-stay-warm.html#ixzz3OTAsS2M0 

 

 

Oh, and in bizarro news (at least to me), even the head of Hezbollah had condemned the attacks.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/09/nasrallah-cartoons_n_6443530.html

 

"The leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah group says Islamic extremists have insulted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad more than those who published satirical cartoons mocking the religion.

 

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah did not directly mention the Paris attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo that left 12 people dead, but he said Islamic extremists who behead and slaughter people — a reference to the IS group's rampages in Iraq and Syria — have done more harm to Islam than anyone else in history.

Nasrallah spoke Friday via video link to supporters gathered in southern Beirut."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umsami, I'm interested in your thoughts on what Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi's (sp? Egyptian president) speech about a "religious revolution" might mean.  Is he speaking about trying to change how Islam is perceived in the world or actually changing Islamic doctrine or something different?  I thought it was very interesting, but wonder how it is being received by Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umsami, I'm interested in your thoughts on what Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi's (sp? Egyptian president) speech about a "religious revolution" might mean.  Is he speaking about trying to change how Islam is perceived in the world or actually changing Islamic doctrine or something different?  I thought it was very interesting, but wonder how it is being received by Muslims.

 

I saw the El-Sisi thing today.  I'm glad he spoke out, even though I'm not sure he holds much weight.  I'm glad the Arab League was one of the first to condemn the attacks...and perhaps he can use his position as President of Egypt with the Arab League to at least get the Arab Muslim countries working on this. Still I'm not sure he's not the guy to engage the Muslim scholars, etc.  Maybe it means he wants to move Egypt to a more secular state like Turkey? I don't know.  

 

I don't think he can actually change Islamic doctrine.  I mean, it's pretty much written down and stuff...but he may be talking about something similar to what the Turks have been working on?  The Turks have had this multiyear project on examine the ahadith (sayings, traditions of the Prophet Muhammad) which look(ed) promising to me.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0807/Muslims-should-welcome-a-new-modern-perspective-on-prophet-s-sayings

 

I'd like to see more actual debate. I'd love to see some of the more fundamentalist Shaykhs be taken down a peg or two in influence.  

 

He does have power in that in general he can veto whomever becomes the Grand Mufti of Al-Azhar. Al Azhar is the most prestigious Islamic university (or one of the most) and the head guy's opinions usually carry some weight.  The problem has become that people now know that it's often a political appointment, so they don't always view the fatwas with the same weight as perhaps 20 years ago.  Still Ali Gomaa has spoken out quite strongly against FGM, nonviolence, etc.  In general, of the things I've seen in English, I like the guy.  I'd like to see him talk more about domestic violence, child abuse, homophobia...all which are big issues in Egypt. But still, speaking out against FGM was a big deal for a culture where it predates Islam, is practiced among both Copts and Egyptians, and goes back to the Pharaohs.

 

Anyhoo, I'm not a fan of El-Sisi because of the coup.  (I didn't love Morsi either, but I did love the fact that he was actually freely elected.)  I still hope he's successful.  Maybe he can use his power to start dialogue.  The Saudis and Emirates seem to like him, because they hate the idea of people rising up and overthrowing their monarchies.  The extremists are far more dangerous/scary to them and their regimes than to us.  I mean, even the Hezbollah guy spoke out against them.   SO, regardless of other things, I hope he's successful. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not excusing their actions...but acting like things happen in a bubble...is ridiculous. (And note that none of those things have to do with Charlie HEbdo as far as I can tell...but they do fuel extremism...and it seems like the brothers had been recruited earlier. They had also mentioned Abu Ghraib from what I remember as why they went to recruit people to fight against the US and France in Iraq.) By not wanting to know why extremists do what they do, to me, it's like saying...."OK, yeah....their religion must condone this or must really be so violent that there's no reason needed to get people to do these things." It doesn't. Here is a good article from the BBC on war in Islam and when it is justified.

 

If you knew anything about how they recruit people, you'd know that they use these things online. We see a sanitized version of the wars we start and actions we support. That's not the case for the recruiters. I've seen some of the photos of the people burned by white phosphorus. I've seen some of the photos from the Gaza conflict, where the US funds the IDF. I've seen pictures that Palestinian children have drawn in art therapy, and they label the jets USA who kill them and their families. They love to show pictures of babies and children missing limbs. The video that started the whole Wikileaks thing....killing first responders. The Iraqi war victim photos were immense. The Abu Ghraib photos of torture were horrific, and we saw sanitized versions. They tell them that Muslims are being attacked and murdered....innocent Muslim children...and it's their duty as Muslims to defend them. There are videos that show these images over and over again for like hours, and they are very good at brainwashing people to a "revenge" methodology.

 

There is no excuse for attacking innocent people, be they in a kosher supermarket, a newspaper office, a school, or at a wedding. None whatsoever. But when the West is perpetrator or funder of violence against Muslim people, which we sadly have been for at least the past 25 years, you can be sure that it will be used to recruit others towards violence towards the West.

 

BTW, we did the same thing. Photos and video of people jumping out of the WTC were very effective recruiting tactics for the armed services here. People wanted to do something. More than 3,000 innocent people had been killed. Do you think the Muslims are any different? You don't think they want to respond when their innocent people are killed? They don't use actions against militants as recruiting tools, they pose pictures of dead and mutilated women and children....the elderly...etc. The innocent.

 

Remember, we bombed Al Jazeera's office in Iraq during the beginning of the war. Why? Because they were showing/broadcasting images of the carnage that we were inflicted. We killed innocent journalists with no apologies. (We also bombed their offices in Kabul too.)

 

What would I do to combat extremism? I'd do a lot more humanitarian work in Muslim countries. We'd be doing a lot more for Syrian refugees...and would have started four years ago. We'd exert a lot more pressure against the IDF regarding using items condemned worldwide against humans, like white phosphorus. We'd stop using our veto over everything and anything that criticized Israel in the UN. Yes, some are ridiculous and should be vetoed, but others actually hold merit. We'd be viewed as more neutral. And yes, I would offer funds to the moderate Muslim madhabs and institutions so they could rival the Saudi influence. It may be too late on that...at least for a generation or two.

 

But, I think I'm done here. I'm sure there are plenty on this board who will think that all Muslims are extremists. Or most or whatever. I'm tired of being one or two token Muslims trying to explain things. I lived in Paris. I'm heart broken. I'm more heart broken that this was done by people who claim to share my faith--but with whom I find I have nothing in common. My apartment was on the same metro line as the kosher supermarket that was just attacked. We used to go to, what was back in the late 80s at least, the quatier Juif at least every few weeks. This might make for interesting reading for some...I think it basically sums up this thread: http://publicreligion.org/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-and-americans-opinions-of-religious-violence/

 

"A PRRI survey found that Americans have a double standard when evaluating violence committed by self-identified Christians and Muslims. More than 8-in-10 (83 percent) Americans say that self-proclaimed Christians who commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity are not really Christians. In contrast, less than half (48 percent) of Americans say that self-proclaimed Muslims who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam are not really Muslims."

 

"Among white evangelical Protestants, the gap is a staggering 47 percentage points: only 10 percent of evangelicals believe that a self-identified Christian perpetrators are really Christian, compared to 57 percent who believe that self-identified Muslim perpetrators are truly Muslim."

X10000

 

Because liking this was not enough.

 

ETA: Fwiw, I'm not a terrorism apologist or sympathiser, but just aware of the role that politics ( inter country, intra country, religious. Etc) plays in the creation of terrorism or terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this, and I can't figure out how to link it, but there's a very interesting (and now poignant) video on the Ny Times website (just go to the main page and you will see it). It shows the cartoonists and editors of Charlie Hebdo drawing and talking about what to publish at the time of the Danish incident. Poignant because it shows 3 of the people who died.

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.

 

Emily, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment in bold.

 

What I am struggling with on this thread is insisting that all the Muslim leaders stand up and embrace free speech as an ideal, to ignore perceived obscenities and that will cure everything.

 

I don't believe that if every Muslim leader did this and urged only non-violent responses like going to court, that it would in any way affect the actions of terrorists like those responsible for Charlie Hebda. I guess I believe this because I still believe that religion is not the cause, but the excuse.

 

The Crusades had a purported religious purpose and they did to some extent, but there were also a whole bunch of thugs who were just thugs. Religion gave them a reason to justify to the outside world and to themselves why it was okay to murder, rape, torture, and destroy. At that point, it's not really about free speech or faith; it's about power - maintaining or gaining it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emily, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment in bold.

 

What I am struggling with on this thread is insisting that all the Muslim leaders stand up and embrace free speech as an ideal, to ignore perceived obscenities and that will cure everything.

 

I don't believe that if every Muslim leader did this and urged only non-violent responses like going to court, that it would in any way affect the actions of terrorists like those responsible for Charlie Hebda. I guess I believe this because I still believe that religion is not the cause, but the excuse.

 

The Crusades had a purported religious purpose and they did to some extent, but there were also a whole bunch of thugs who were just thugs. Religion gave them a reason to justify to the outside world and to themselves why it was okay to murder, rape, torture, and destroy. At that point, it's not really about free speech or faith; it's about power - maintaining or gaining it.

 

 

You do not think that if every single Christian leader had stood up and said, no, this is wrong, do not join into these Crusades that it would have made no difference?

 

I think it can make a huge difference. Take Gandhi. Take Martin Luther King, Jr. .... advocating non-violence may not result in zero violence, but I do not believe that it has no effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not think that if every single Christian leader had stood up and said, no, this is wrong, do not join into these Crusades that it would have made no difference?

 

I think it can make a huge difference. Take Gandhi. Take Martin Luther King, Jr. .... advocating non-violence may not result in zero violence, but I do not believe that it has no effect.

 

Sure, it makes a difference to people *within that movement*.

 

But, some people are saying something more like Martin Luther King, Jr (if he was still living) is responsible for Boko Haram's murder sprees because they are both black and if black leaders would stand up to the leaders of Boko Haram, then they would change their wayward behavior.

 

Moderate Muslims in India or the US or Canada don't believe that Islamic extremism coming from Yemen or SA has anything to do with them because they are as far removed from that brand of Islam as you are. Islamic extremist leaders in Yemen and SA don't believe that moderate Muslims in India and the US and Canada are "real" Muslims and are just as willing to kill *those* infidels as the white Christian infidels or black atheist infidels or whomever else they feel like killing. Extremists *don't care* what the moderates think because each thinking the other aren't real Muslims is a two way street. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 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. 

 

 

 

I have to admit I'm not really understanding what you want to happen either.  Even religions that do have the means to excommunicate, still don't *control* those people.  Basically excommunication is just saying "we don't approve of what you are doing and do not consider you part of our religion", and the Muslim community/leaders have already done that.  

 

What real action can there be within the religion?  Within any religion? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also disturbed by the number of stories that have come out this week, after the shootings at the Jewish supermarket, about the rates of Jewish people leaving European countries, including Britain and France.

 

Does anyone know more about this ? Dialectica ?

Not Dialecta, and I don't know about other European countries, but there has been an increased amount of emigration from France to Israel. In fact, in 2014, for the first time since the state of Israel was established in1948, France was the country that had the highest number of people emigrating to Israel. (6600 in 2014, also 3400 in 2013 according to Le Figaro http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2015/01/13/01016-20150113ARTFIG00119-pourquoi-les-victimes-de-l-hypercacher-sont-enterrees-en-israel.php)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, it makes a difference to people *within that movement*.

 

But, some people are saying something more like Martin Luther King, Jr (if he was still living) is responsible for Boko Haram's murder sprees because they are both black and if black leaders would stand up to the leaders of Boko Haram, then they would change their wayward behavior.

 

Moderate Muslims in India or the US or Canada don't believe that Islamic extremism coming from Yemen or SA has anything to do with them because they are as far removed from that brand of Islam as you are. Islamic extremist leaders in Yemen and SA don't believe that moderate Muslims in India and the US and Canada are "real" Muslims and are just as willing to kill *those* infidels as the white Christian infidels or black atheist infidels or whomever else they feel like killing. Extremists *don't care* what the moderates think because each thinking the other aren't real Muslims is a two way street. 

 

My understanding was that the gunmen were raised in France, not in Yemen or SA. So what they heard for the many years of their youth might have had some influence. What would they have been hearing?

 

Moderate Muslims I know here in America certainly do believe that what is going on has something to do with them. 1) for the reason you give that they would be considered not infidels but heretics and killed too as soon as infidels; 2) some I know came here to get away from oppression in places like Iran; 3) some who have children fear for their daughters going off to become married to IS fighters or their sons to become part of that themselves.  I obviously know moderate Muslims who are different and have different beliefs and fears than the ones you know. 

 

In any case, the post I was replying to suggested that it would make no difference even if all Muslim leaders advocated non-violence. I understood that to mean Muslim leaders everywhere, Europe, Yemen, SA, the Americas, Africa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emily, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment in bold.

 

What I am struggling with on this thread is insisting that all the Muslim leaders stand up and embrace free speech as an ideal, to ignore perceived obscenities and that will cure everything.

 

I don't believe that if every Muslim leader did this and urged only non-violent responses like going to court, that it would in any way affect the actions of terrorists like those responsible for Charlie Hebda. I guess I believe this because I still believe that religion is not the cause, but the excuse.

 

The Crusades had a purported religious purpose and they did to some extent, but there were also a whole bunch of thugs who were just thugs. Religion gave them a reason to justify to the outside world and to themselves why it was okay to murder, rape, torture, and destroy. At that point, it's not really about free speech or faith; it's about power - maintaining or gaining it.

 

I strongly agree with you regarding the bolded. However, I do think it makes a difference when other Muslims speak out from within their religious framework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding was that the gunmen were raised in France, not in Yemen or SA. So what they heard for the many years of their youth might have had some influence. What would they have been hearing?

 

 

 

It has *already* been described on this thread what they have been consuming for many years of their youth *through the internet*. You do understand that the US (and its allies, including the French) has been actively at war with extremist factions of Islam for a long time. There is plenty of footage (some misleading, some not, some fact, some fiction) out there to fuel those fires *without* them hearing anything within their local community. The recruiting tactics of these extremists factions (of the sort that set up terrorist training camps) have already been described.

 

 

 

Moderate Muslims I know here in America certainly do believe that what is going on has something to do with them. 1) for the reason you give that they would be considered not infidels but heretics and killed too as soon as infidels; 2) some I know came here to get away from oppression in places like Iran; 3) some who have children fear for their daughters going off to become married to IS fighters or their sons to become part of that themselves.  I obviously know moderate Muslims who are different and have different beliefs and fears than the ones you know.

 

Those are similar to fears held by non-Muslims (in point of fact, some US Christians have had children convert, attend training camps, etc), so I am not sure how this contradicts what I said? 

 

 

In any case, the post I was replying to suggested that it would make no difference even if all Muslim leaders advocated non-violence. I understood that to mean Muslim leaders everywhere, Europe, Yemen, SA, the Americas, Africa.

 

Well, all Muslim leaders everywhere are not against violence. That's is, indeed, why we have this issue. But, you can't blame ALL leaders for the actions of SOME. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, all Muslim leaders everywhere are not against violence. That's is, indeed, why we have this issue. But, you can't blame ALL leaders for the actions of SOME. 

 

Not at all. I think there is a lot of talking past one another that goes on, with a failure to quite understand what each other are saying.

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


×
×
  • Create New...