Terror attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris

[Metahive]

The religious comparison is not relevant, as you say. It is thrown up because of the reflex to not 'allow' people from the developed world to criticize foreigners, without a recitation of the Litany of American Crimes or whatever.

Not doing yourself any favors with that.

*breath*

First off, the comparisons were started by Crown who contrasted those Evil Primitive Brown People and their Religion of Pure Evil who Do Evil Things with the saintly Christians who would never hurt a fly (or at least apologize profusely afterwards). Page 2 of this debate. There, he was the one who started this. Blame him for it.
Second, nobody is saying the Charlie Hebdo shooters are justified, just that there's really no reason that people should act all surprised and bewildered that such things happen! Fact is, it's been over 60 years that Europe, exceptions like Yugoslavia and the current Ukrainian crisis notwithstanding, had a period of peace, quiet and security. For the US it's even longer, they didn't have any major strife taking place on their soil since 1865. The Middle East however has been a hotbed of one crisis after another for at least since the conclusion of WW1 where the victors saw fit to randomly redraw the map over there and pit one ethnicity against another for petty powerplay and those machinations haven't stopped even today.
What do I want to say? Just pointing out that a someone who's life was one of peace and security will react differently to one who's been living under less fortunate circumstances. So all this nose-thumping at those brown primitives who can't react "civilised" to such pithy issues as cartoons reeks of ignorant privilege that people should drop for their own good. When an Austrian newspaper accidentally printed the wrong date of death of german emperor Wilhelm I, the Austrian right wing reacted by violently attacking that newspaper's offices. That was in 1888 when Austria-Hungary was in a similar situation as the Middle East is today with its ethnic and religious tensions. We are really not all that different, that's what I want to say.

People really should try to empathize and attempt to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Again, not saying that Hebdo murderers were right to do what they did, just that blaming it on them being evil and their religion being evil as well is an invalid shortcut.

Clear enough now?

[Elfdart]

Australian news is reporting that one of the police shot by the terrorists was himself a Muslim. Cries of Je Suis Ahmed is now appearing.

He's more worthy of sympathy than cartoonists who make fun of the victims of Boko Haram, implying the kids wanted to get abducted, raped and knocked up so they could draw welfare checks.



So I guess that if some fanatics should decide to gun down those oh so loveable curmudgeons at Stormfront or a creep like David Irving, then it won't be enough to say the killers should be brought to justice. On top of that, all decent folk will be expected to show solidarity with the bigoted fucktards and media outlets should re-publish their works. Screw that.

[mr friendly guy]

I actually tried to find out about that title Elfdart. You might want to check the following link.

http://www.quora.com/What-was-the-conte ... are-queens

Charlie supposedly mix and matched various unrelated headlines to make some sort of joke. In this case the atrocities by Boko Haram and welfare changes in France.

The link showed another Charlie cover which mixed a sacking of a minister with the execution of an American by ISIS, although the minister who lost his job is presumably the hostage. I can see where the humour albeit dark humour is coming from there. Presumably its talking about how tough the reshuffle has been for the minister with a large tinge of hyperbole.

So if someone who is a bit more versed in French political satire, able to explain the Boko Haram cover. That one I am not sure I can figure out the supposed joke, except perhaps French welfare allocations are so bad even Boko Haram does a better job (obviously hyperbole there).

[Lagmonster]

While MFG's explanation may be accurate for all I know, I would also remind people that lots of comedy exists to bother people, to make them uncomfortable. Lenny Bruce and his successors, especially George Carlin and Louis CK, knew that an excellent way to challenge people to think about what they hold sacred is to have a moment of absurdity or shock where it suddenly isn't being treated as sacred. The innocent and the victim are very popular sacred cows, and often wind up as the target of this kind of comedy. It may even be therapeutic for some; comedians were telling 9/11 jokes within days of the tragedy, and people laughed, because it's exhausting and frustrating and draining to be sad and grim constantly for days on end when you're otherwise a happy and healthy person.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Not doing yourself any favors with that.

*breath*

First off, the comparisons were started by Crown who contrasted those Evil Primitive Brown People and their Religion of Pure Evil who Do Evil Things with the saintly Christians who would never hurt a fly (or at least apologize profusely afterwards). Page 2 of this debate. There, he was the one who started this. Blame him for it.
Second, nobody is saying the Charlie Hebdo shooters are justified, just that there's really no reason that people should act all surprised and bewildered that such things happen! Fact is, it's been over 60 years that Europe, exceptions like Yugoslavia and the current Ukrainian crisis notwithstanding, had a period of peace, quiet and security. For the US it's even longer, they didn't have any major strife taking place on their soil since 1865. The Middle East however has been a hotbed of one crisis after another for at least since the conclusion of WW1 where the victors saw fit to randomly redraw the map over there and pit one ethnicity against another for petty powerplay and those machinations haven't stopped even today.
What do I want to say? Just pointing out that a someone who's life was one of peace and security will react differently to one who's been living under less fortunate circumstances. So all this nose-thumping at those brown primitives who can't react "civilised" to such pithy issues as cartoons reeks of ignorant privilege that people should drop for their own good. When an Austrian newspaper accidentally printed the wrong date of death of german emperor Wilhelm I, the Austrian right wing reacted by violently attacking that newspaper's offices. That was in 1888 when Austria-Hungary was in a similar situation as the Middle East is today with its ethnic and religious tensions. We are really not all that different, that's what I want to say.

People really should try to empathize and attempt to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Again, not saying that Hebdo murderers were right to do what they did, just that blaming it on them being evil and their religion being evil as well is an invalid shortcut.


Clear enough now?

I'm not clear on a couple of things. Why are you talking about brown people when your opponent, Crown, is talking about the religion of the two shooters. As far as it being evil it is about as evil as Christianity which can be pretty damn evil if one goes through the Koran and I don't see anyone defending Christians nor do I see it being considered an acceptable defense by those that defend Christianity to make it about the color of their skin. I am facsinated why Islam is worthy of such defense and slandering defensive tactics.

Calling the majorty of those that practice Islam evil is inaccurate and racist. Attacking the religion itself as encouraging said behavior is valid every bit as doing so when attacking Christianity.

By the way. Shooting unarmed people over a cartoon is what I would consider evil. Though if evil doesn't work for you then crazy, irrational, criminal, etc. Pick from one of those or something similar. Whatever the choice it won't be positive.

[Metahive]

I'm not clear on a couple of things. Why are you talking about brown people when your opponent, Crown, is talking about the religion of the two shooters. As far as it being evil it is about as evil as Christianity which can be pretty damn evil if one goes through the Koran and I don't see anyone defending Christians nor do I see it being considered an acceptable defense by those that defend Christianity to make it about the color of their skin. I am facsinated why Islam is worthy of such defense and slandering defensive tactics.

Calling the majorty of those that practice Islam evil is inaccurate and racist. Attacking the religion itself as encouraging said behavior is valid every bit as doing so when attacking Christianity.

By the way. Shooting unarmed people over a cartoon is what I would consider evil. Though if evil doesn't work for you then crazy, irrational, criminal, etc. Pick from one of those or something similar. Whatever the choice it won't be positive.

It's like you didn't read a word I wrote despite quoting all of it. Not bothering until you do.

[Edi]

Australian news is reporting that one of the police shot by the terrorists was himself a Muslim. Cries of Je Suis Ahmed is now appearing.

[snip image]

He's more worthy of sympathy than cartoonists who make fun of the victims of Boko Haram, implying the kids wanted to get abducted, raped and knocked up so they could draw welfare checks.

[snip image]

So I guess that if some fanatics should decide to gun down those oh so loveable curmudgeons at Stormfront or a creep like David Irving, then it won't be enough to say the killers should be brought to justice. On top of that, all decent folk will be expected to show solidarity with the bigoted fucktards and media outlets should re-publish their works. Screw that.

The larger point is that the magazine was basically an equal opportunity satire outfit that made fun of everyone and everything. I don't know French, even enough to read anything, so I'd be careful about making assumptions based just on cover pictures. Too easy to miss the context.

If one wanted to defend everything they did (often opposite sides of same things), one's head would explode. It's their right to say and draw what they want and they can be assholes if they like and we can condemn them for it in some instances and applaud in some, according to our own views. This is not self-contradictory, as long as we acknowledge their right to do that.

[wautd]

I know that Charlie Hebdo ridiculed islamic extremism/extremists, but not too sure about Islam per se. Not that it matters to me though, because no religion or ideologue should be above critique. It's a slippery slope when you start making exceptions.

And yes, they also often mock extreme right, catholisism,... But I guess they only reach the world press whenever they mocj something related to islam.

Update: 2 hostage situations going on at the moment...

[AniThyng]

Sorry for going back a page, but I just got up.

Ray 245, honest question here (not trolling) because I think that this is the heart of the "moderate Muslim" vs "extremist Muslim" problem:

As I mentioned above, I do not think it is a good idea to treat western idea of religion in the same manner as someone who comes from the Islamic world. There are Muslims out there who clearly do not think it is merely a set of beliefs. I've known Muslims who drinks alcohol and breaks numerous rules in Islam without being able to reject their identity as a Muslim, even when they believed that they will go to hell for their actions. I think it is actually quite hard to treat being a Muslim as being equal to someone who is a Christian in a western society. Christianity is no longer an ethnic identity for most people in the developed world, but being a Muslim can be seen as a form of ethnic identity.

As I see it there are essentially three sets of Muslims involved (with overlaps, and of varying size and shifting boundaries and definitions):

1. Strictly fundamentalist Muslims who obey the Quran as the Word of God;
2. "Lapsed (for want of a better term)" Muslims such as your example above; and
3. The Western world's view of Muslims as a monolithic block who are all identical.

As near as I can tell, the issue here is that "extremist Muslims" all appear to come from Group 1, the vast majority of Muslims in the world are Group 2 or Group 1 (except without the whole religion of the sword, convert or die thing), while some elements of the West (scaremongers) attempt to equate Group 3 with Group 1.

Is there any way, in your opinion, in which Group 2 could be actually popularly recognized? Is this even possible, bearing in mind that your exemplar Muslims would be punished by Group 1 up to and including death if they didn't join Group 1?

I'm not Ray, but I think the group you left out is 1.5, not lapsed, and not strictly fundamentalist - by western standards they would be morally right wing - against abortion, against homosexuality (at best, they might go with "surpress your urges" or at minimum "just shut up about it and be discreet"), against open apostasy, against immodest dress etc, and the problem that seems to be going on as I see it is this idea that moderate islam is equatable to moderate christianity. At best, I would say liberal islam ranks with moderate christianity. The problem isn't that group 2 is lumped with group 1 with 3 as such, but more that you think that you can view global islam with the same lens of your current culture where anyone can come out and make fun of christ and declare themselves atheist, and think that because muslims in general are against extremist violence, there must therefore be also liberal and against the rest of islamic practices you find unpalatable.

[Crown]

Mods, don't mean to spam, just wanted to respond to different posts to keep conversation threads separate. If you wish to merge all the following into one, have at it!

[Crown]

Uhu, you might as well have cited David Duke as an authority on race relations, Crown. Hitchens was a well known anti-brown peoplebigot. I don't put any stock in his words.

Reality doesn't concern itself with whether you 'put any stock' into facts or not. I've seen people use ad hominems to try and defeat an argument, this is the first time I've seen someone use an ad hominem to avoid it altogether. Mind you, if I just had my arse handed to me by someone who is dead I too would slink away from my previous idiocy.

And of course, that answer is to a strawman anyway, since I never said anything bad done by Islamic Fundamentalists is justified because of past abuse, just that it isn't surprising it happens and not an effect of Islam being a Religion of Evil as claimed by way too many people. Wanna deal with the cursive part for a change?

No, you just pathetically implied that their sheer existence can be 'squarely laid at the feet of the very Christian Bush <blah, blah more of the same for effect, snipped for brevity>'. Which would also transfer blame to 'other people' over their (ISIS) actions, I mean if you created it then you're culpable right? That was your point, right? Don't walk away for it, own your idiocy.

However, I'll acquiesce to your insistence 'to deal with the cursive':

Not a single person who died in Paris was shot because of the West's numerous crimes and remnant imperialistic tendencies across the globe and throughout history. Malala Yousafzai wasn't shot in the face because of the Iraq war. Ayaan Hirsi Ali isn't living under constant security umbrella because of drone strikes in Yemen. Salman Rushdie didn't spend a decade getting up close and personal with MI6 because of the Crusades. Each and every one of these individuals were (and some are still) targeted because they had the audacity to offend Islam.

What is worse, and what needs to be reiterated since you seem to be ignorant and can't grasp this on your own; this isn't some kind of perversion of the faith. The jihadis are acting in accordance with the teachings of their faith. There is no other religion on this planet where you can draw a clear line from 'belief' to 'action' like you can with Islam.

Since you're already name-dropping "famous" islam critics, gonna' quote Sam Harris to me next? The guy who think Islam is so evil, the West should just annihilate the entire Middle East via nuclear first strike?

Another ad hominem coupled with an already debunked strawman, well done!

Also, if you live in the West, then death by islamic terrorism has less chance to occur than death by rabid dog or lightning strike (or getting hit by a car for that matter).

Unless you're a cartoonist. Or a filmaker. Or an author ... Ask yourself this; every single media outlet in the west ran with a 'Je Suis Charlie' theme, some even showed the moment a police officer was executed on a sidewalk. How many showed solidarity by reprinting a Charlie Hebdo cover? The list is short, shouldn't take you long to answer.

[Crown]

What an utterly fatuous argument Hitchens makes in that clip. What he does is he takes what even he himself describes as a "terrible atrocity" and "a genocide more comprehensive than Cambodia", he offsets that against that purportedly Al Qaeda is upset over the loss of East Timor, and then he concludes that if 'we' "want to avoid upsetting [terrorists]" then "we have to let Indonesia commit genocide in East Timor".

Say what? It speaks to Hitchens' cleverness that he's able to pull that piece of insane rhetoric off the cuff, but anyone that thinks about it more than a few seconds should come to the conclusion that it's bullshit of the highest order.

"Purportedly". Try stated explicitly.

I've heard of reading comprehension problems but congratulations you have reality comprehending problems champ!

No, we don't want to let Indonesia commit genocide in East Timor. And in fact nobody even referenced trying to avoid "upsetting these people" (whoever the fuck "these people" are supposed to be; are those offended by Charlie Hebdo "these people"?).

"These people" clearly refers to the jihadis in particular and all other theocrats in general as Hitchens stated. Succinctly. In plain Engilsh.

It's just that some of us would like to get to the actual root of the problem of this insane violence, and aren't looking away when it is suggested that heinous shit like the West collectively looking the other way while "a genocide more comprehensive than Cambodia" transpires might be part of that root.

None of that paragraph made any sense in the context of what was posted in Hitchen's clip. Please rephrase it if you would like me to respond.

"Leave me out of it" Hitchens says. Sure! I'll stop talking about the collective Western responsibilities (in whole or in part) for the fucked-up-ness of large parts of the world and all the awful shit that happens in those parts, just as soon as you stop insisting that attacks by outlying Islamic fucknuggets are blanket 'Muslim attacks' like that says anything of significance at all. Then maybe we can all talk about actual roots and causes and solutions like grown ups and it'll be like we're having an actual discussion. It'll be swell. I'm looking forward to those days.

Are you actually this ignorant? How can someone so comprehensively misunderstand a 5 minute clip? Here I'll help you;

After a speech on the threat of Jihadism to a free and open society random person asks Hitchens as to why he is ignoring the 'fact' that Jihadism is a reaction to Western cumfuckery in the world (in our scenario that would be you and the other brain trust Metahive).

First of all; anyone accusing Hitchens of turning a blind eye to shitty behaviour of Western hubris is on the verge of discrediting themselves on the outset. This is the man that cheered the overthrow of the last colonial remnants in Africa (although he would later regret that Mugabe turned out to be an actual dick of the highest order), wrote extensively of the crimes Israel has perpetrated against the Palestinian people, has campaigned for the release of prisoner X (the Israeli whistle blowers on their nuclear programme who have been disappeared), has denounced the betrayal of the Kurdish during the first Gulf War, has wrote that Nixon and Kissenger should be tried for high treason against the United States and for war crimes against the Vietnamese people, has repeatedly called out Christian Evangelicals, and refuted fascism and racism during his long career.

But he lets that go, he doesn't need to beat his own chest. He just clearly states that, yes there is some actions which we 'in the West' do which infuriate the Jihadist. He points out that one of those actions was in reversing our course of looking away from the genocide occurring in East Timor. This is an actual reason they are declaring a Jihad. Did you get that Mr I want to talk about everything? The West opposing a genocide is reason enough for bombing tourists in Bali. For setting off car bombs in Iraq specifically targeting a UN special envoy.

The point that Hitchens is trying to make, but you are too ignorant to grasp, is that; yes, there are many actions that we in the West do which will demand condemnation and he had never shied away from doing so. However do not fool yourself into believing if we didn't do drone strikes that all would be peachy. That is not possible when you are dealing with an enemy who gets angry at you for not letting them commit genocide. Do not fool yourself into believing if we didn't support Israel there would be peace in the Middle East. That is not possible when you are dealing with an enemy who gets upset with you when you tell them you can't throw acid in the faces of unveiled women. Do not fool yourself into believing if we didn't carry out air strikes against ISIS then there would peace and rainbows for all mankind. That is not possible when you are dealing with an enemy who murders 12 people when you tell them a cartoonist has a right to lampoon anyone they damn well please.

Fuck it, let me ask you plainly; why were 12 people killed in Paris?

[Crown]

You hit the nail right on the head. It seems sometimes that liberal ex-christians genuinely have no idea how much more difficult it is for muslims to reject their religion in the same way that they have rejected theirs.

Not at all true, we understand it just fine. Bill Maher had a great bit on it; "Islam is the only religion that's like the mob. If you try to leave it, they'll whack you!" The problem is, when we point this out we're shouted down by the Ben Affleck's of the world as being 'racist'.

[Crown]

So Christian fundies can also turn violent when their sacred cows get prodded. The only difference I see is that the Muslim fundies are more skilled and daring than the Christian ones, who are luckily dumber and more craven.

We can have this conversation if you want Elfdart, but I hardly see why we should bother. Is it true there are other religions which have belief systems that are way more fucked up than Islam? Yes, Leviticus and Deuteronomy should make any rational clear thinking person want to scream in terror at the shit written in there. Can you draw a straight line between those belief systems and crimes committed by their believers? No, in general the only religion which you can do so is Islam.

There is a reason that there are something like 41,000 different Christian denominations. Their holy books are so full of contradiction you can actually have one person who believes all baby killers should die, and one person who believes that any killing is a sin and both of them identify as 'Christian' and both of them being able to use the words and teachings of their holy scriptures - and not their own morality - to justify their position. I mean there are gay Christians in this world Elfdart. Gay people who not only identify themselves as Christians but also live in abstinence and modesty before marriage in order to 'honour their faith'. If that isn't a more apt example of how contradictory this religion is (and how fucking powerful a brain washer religion is in general) then I don't know what is.

Alternatively; no such self contradiction can exist within Islam, because no matter how morally vacuous it's teachings are, it's literature is remarkably "better" written than that of the Christian doctrine. Wanna know what to do with someone who insults the Prophet? It's written in the Hadith. Want to know what to do with a thief? It's in the Quoran. And there is sweet fuck all you can use from those sources with which to contradict it! That's the problem that faces Islam today. It doesn't need 'moderation' it needs a 'reformation'.

[Crown]

Who is making such a case here? Understanding why certain societies tends to be more upset by insults does not justify the actions committed by certain individuals of the society. The case I am making is we can't view people who believe in Islam in the same lens as how we view someone who is Christian.

Everyone has a right to be offended, no one has a right to not be offended.

There have already been a number of articles out there saying that such cartoons isn't merely mocking someone's religion, but mocks someone's ethnicity.

And they are wrong. It's the same as saying; "Atheists are a race. Anyone who mounts an argument against atheism is a racist, atheophobic bigot." - Proffessor Dawkins trolling the internet. It's utterly absurd to label something you can convert to or leave from as a race. There is a deeper conversation of identity to be had, but using the words 'race' and 'racism' are just wrong.

[Crown]

First off, the comparisons were started by Crown who contrasted those Evil Primitive Brown People and their Religion of Pure Evil who Do Evil Things with the saintly Christians who would never hurt a fly (or at least apologize profusely afterwards). Page 2 of this debate. There, he was the one who started this. Blame him for it.

I did no such thing. Quote me doing so or apologise, or I will petition for a reprimand. Here's a hint; no matter how much you cry about it, speaking against Islam is not the same as being anti brown people. I mean, could you imagine if I was an agnostic Indian and I had just read what you said? I don't know whether I would die of laughter or shock. It seems to me the only person who is focused on race here, is you.

Second, nobody is saying the Charlie Hebdo shooters are justified, just that there's really no reason that people should act all surprised and bewildered that such things happen! Fact is, it's been over 60 years that Europe, exceptions like Yugoslavia and the current Ukrainian crisis notwithstanding, had a period of peace, quiet and security. For the US it's even longer, they didn't have any major strife taking place on their soil since 1865. The Middle East however has been a hotbed of one crisis after another for at least since the conclusion of WW1 where the victors saw fit to randomly redraw the map over there and pit one ethnicity against another for petty powerplay and those machinations haven't stopped even today.

I'm going to ask you a very simple question; why were 12 people executed at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris?

What do I want to say? Just pointing out that a someone who's life was one of peace and security will react differently to one who's been living under less fortunate circumstances. So all this nose-thumping at those brown primitives who can't react "civilised" to such pithy issues as cartoons reeks of ignorant privilege that people should drop for their own good. When an Austrian newspaper accidentally printed the wrong date of death of german emperor Wilhelm I, the Austrian right wing reacted by violently attacking that newspaper's offices. That was in 1888 when Austria-Hungary was in a similar situation as the Middle East is today with its ethnic and religious tensions. We are really not all that different, that's what I want to say.

Neither the editor nor cartoonist of Charlie Hebdo had been living a life of 'peace and security' for the past decade for a very specific reason. Would you care to actually answer as to what that reason was?

People really should try to empathize and attempt to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Again, not saying that Hebdo murderers were right to do what they did, just that blaming it on them being evil and their religion being evil as well is an invalid shortcut.

Clear enough now?

No, not clear. Who am I meant to empathise with Metahive. Be clear.

[Edi]

Mods, don't mean to spam, just wanted to respond to different posts to keep conversation threads separate. If you wish to merge all the following into one, have at it!

This is much better than putting it all into a single huge post where everyone forgets who you're responding to after the third quote box. Besides, doing things this way means it's far easier to split a separate tangent out if it becomes necessary when there are not so many things mixed in that don't belong. I don't think anybody minds, really, since those are hardly +1 posts.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Can you draw a straight line between those belief systems and crimes committed by their believers? No, in general the only religion which you can do so is Islam.

So ... we can't draw a straight line between Christian belief in the sanctity of the fetus and extreme Christians bombing an abortion clinic? I don't entirely understand what you mean by this statement.

There is a reason that there are something like 41,000 different Christian denominations. Their holy books are so full of contradiction you can actually have one person who believes all baby killers should die, and one person who believes that any killing is a sin and both of them identify as 'Christian' and both of them being able to use the words and teachings of their holy scriptures - and not their own morality - to justify their position. I mean there are gay Christians in this world Elfdart. Gay people who not only identify themselves as Christians but also live in abstinence and modesty before marriage in order to 'honour their faith'. If that isn't a more apt example of how contradictory this religion is (and how fucking powerful a brain washer religion is in general) then I don't know what is.

What makes you think that Islam is such a unified force? There are dozens of different sects or denominations of Islam, many of them as different from each other as any two Christian denominations. And they aren't mutually consistent. It's also silly to claim that the Quran doesn't have its own contradictions; it does, and there is a huge debate in different schools of Islam on to whether to interpret it literally or not. That's not even getting into sunnah, hadith, sharia, fiqh, and kalam, which are all dramatically different between different sects of Islam (and, in fact, are more often drawn from local cultural and tribal heritage rather than a strictly Muslim one).

Wanna know what to do with someone who insults the Prophet? It's written in the Hadith.

Hadith is not a document. You don't seem to actually know much about Islam as a religion, for how confidently you are discussing it here in this thread (in fact, the hadith aren't even the Muslim tradition that discusses what to do when someone insults the Prophet; that would be, alternatively, the Quran or sunnah, depending on the exact sect). Hadith is a blanket term for a variety of teachings, traditions, parables, etc. There are different categories that are treated differently by different sets of Islam: some hadith are considered "the word of God", some are considered oral traditions. In fact, it's funny that you think the Quran contains no contradictions; because in Muslim epistemology the hadith only exist as a fundamental way of reconciling and updating the Quran.

And there is sweet fuck all you can use from those sources with which to contradict it!

Then why are there so many divisions with Islam about which sources are the most important and how to interpret them?

That's the problem that faces Islam today. It doesn't need 'moderation' it needs a 'reformation'.

Considering you lack even the most fundamental knowledge of how Muslim even operates as a religion, I'm not sure you are the most authoritative source on the "problems" and "needs" of the religion.

What makes you think all of the violence that comes out of Muslim regions is purely a factor of the religion in and of itself, and not heavily tied into historical, cultural, social, and economic factors?

Note: to clarify, I am not trying to be an apologist and let the religion off the hook completely. No, it certainly bears culpability. I am simply objecting to the specific characterization of Islam as being this unified violent force, which flies in the face of reality. Islam is a large and incredibly varied religion. Muslims from Indonesia are very unlike Muslims from Pakistan, who are very unlike Muslims from the Arabian peninsula, etc. Just as in Christianity, there are a variety of sects, some more onerous than others. Some sects of Islam are very modern and in practice indistinguishable from modern, moderate Christian sects; it's no coincidence these modern Muslims tend to be the ones living in industrialized countries.

Just as it is a fallacy to say the religion pays NO part in this, it is also a fallacy to look only at the religion and ignore all of the other factors involved. There's a reason the Middle East, despite being predominantly Muslim for most of its history, is continuously riven along social, economic, ethnic, and historical rivalries. Islam is no more cohesive and unifying a force as any other religion.

[Metahive]

I did no such thing. Quote me doing so or apologise, or I will petition for a reprimand. Here's a hint; no matter how much you cry about it, speaking against Islam is not the same as being anti brown people. I mean, could you imagine if I was an agnostic Indian and I had just read what you said? I don't know whether I would die of laughter or shock. It seems to me the only person who is focused on race here, is you.

OK, I apologise for jumping the gun, I will however still not accept Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris as authorities on this, no matter how many apologist websites you link to. If you have an actual argument to make, do so in your own words.

I'm going to ask you a very simple question; why were 12 people executed at the offices of Charlie Hedbo in Paris?

I already did so in this very thread:

Wanna' really go full-on rightard, take all Muslims hostage for the deeds of the extremists, treat them with hate, fear and suspicion and make them feel more isolated and unwelcome than ever?

Then the terrorists have achieved their goals. Congratulations.


Boohoo, I ruined your gotcha' moment.

Unless you're a cartoonist. Or a filmaker. Or an author ... Ask yourself this; every single media outlet in the west ran with a 'Je Suis Charlie' theme, some even showed the moment a police officer was executed on a sidewalk. How many showed solidarity by reprinting a Charlie Hebdo cover? The list is short, shouldn't take you long to answer.

I got something better. Ask yourself, since getting hit by a car is so much bigger a threat to your life than islamic terrorism (as in thousands of times higher a risk), do you quake in your boots every time you have to cross a busy intersection? How many people in the West fell victim to islamic terrorism? That is what I call a short list, buddy. Right wing extremism at the same time is way more present and dangerous. Sharia Law has little chance of ever getting implemented, bigoted policies however don't.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I know that Charlie Hebdo ridiculed islamic extremism/extremists, but not too sure about Islam per se. Not that it matters to me though, because no religion or ideologue should be above critique. It's a slippery slope when you start making exceptions.

And yes, they also often mock extreme right, catholisism,... But I guess they only reach the world press whenever they mocj something related to islam.

Update: 2 hostage situations going on at the moment...

The trouble is that the moment you put Mohammed on the front page, you are pretty much insulting the whole lot of them.

Who is making such a case here? Understanding why certain societies tends to be more upset by insults does not justify the actions committed by certain individuals of the society. The case I am making is we can't view people who believe in Islam in the same lens as how we view someone who is Christian.

Everyone has a right to be offended, no one has a right to not be offended.

The Asian stance on the matter is quite the opposite, and there is no way both sides are ever going to agree on this.

[Metahive]

Just to add a few bits:

What I am most afraid of here in Germany are right-wingers and far right-wingers. The morons who shout xenophobic shit under the guise of "defending" the West known as Pegida I find way more threatening than some islamic shmuck babbling about Jihad 6000 miles away. Yeah, there are islamic fundamentalists here in Germany too, but they have so little traction when it comes to influencing politics or public opinion that I find the overblown reaction to them completely ridiculous. To demonstrate this, when there was a hint of a terrorist bombing threat against the Reichstag, the entire area was basically closed off and it still kind of is even today. When the neo-nazistic NSU went on their year long killing spree of foreigners the police barely took notice of their existence and constantly downplayed them to the point of claiming that their murderers were really other foreigners in some sort of feud.

That is something that terrifies me. There were Nazis murdering people like me and the Police didn't care all that much. Who knows how many other Nazi groups are out there murdering away while the police basically covers their shit up?

Seeing the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland/Alternative for Germany), a new far-right party gain so much support does as well because those people have a realistic chance of making my life worse. Muslims don't. I have Muslim colleagues and went to school with islamic kids. None of them ever made me feel threatened because of their religion. The one skinhead who constantly insulted and harassed me for my race however did until he was thrown out of the school for it.

That's why I find Crown's fearmongering so utterly misguided. Yeah, Muslims have comitted terrible deeds, there's no denying it, but the reaction to it is completely out of proportion. Should I tell my Muslim colleagues that they're bad Muslims because they cherry-pick the parts of their religion, drink wine, eat pork, ignore the Ramadan and make jokes about the Qu'ran from time to time? Your posts above make it sound like you think only the terrorists or the angry fundamentalists are true and obedient Muslims and that's something I find utterly distasteful.

That's it for my part, I feel I can't add any more to this debate.

[Crown]

Can you draw a straight line between those belief systems and crimes committed by their believers? No, in general the only religion which you can do so is Islam.

So ... we can't draw a straight line between Christian belief in the sanctity of the fetus and extreme Christians bombing an abortion clinic? I don't entirely understand what you mean by this statement.

No we can't because no where does it say 'thou shall kill abortion doctors' in the Bible. Yeah, that was smarmy, but there's more substance below.

What makes you think that Islam is such a unified force? There are dozens of different sects or denominations of Islam, many of them as different from each other as any two Christian denominations. And they aren't mutually consistent. It's also silly to claim that the Quran doesn't have its own contradictions; it does, and there is a huge debate in different schools of Islam on to whether to interpret it literally or not. That's not even getting into sunnah, hadith, sharia, fiqh, and kalam, which are all dramatically different between different sects of Islam (and, in fact, are more often drawn from local cultural and tribal heritage rather than a strictly Muslim one).

I'm not saying that the 'Quran doesn't have its own contradictions', I'm saying you cannot have the work around from point blank statements in the Quran as you do in the Bible. Case in point; in the post you responded to I specifically used the example of abstinent homosexual couples who strongly identify themselves as Christian. The reason I did this was specific; Leviticus 18:22 clearly tells us that homosexuality as an abomination and Leviticus 20:13 clearly tells us that they should 'surely be put to death’, so how can anyone when faced with this clear condemnation of who they are not only continue to identify themselves as Christians, but also use scripture as a reason to do so (putting aside people’s remarkable ability to compartmentalise, rationalise and lie to themselves)?

Simple, the mechanism to do so lies within the gospels themselves; the story of the Penitent Thief (Luke 23:39-43) and of the Centurion who both were redeemed during the Crucifixion by Christ. We may say that the Thief was a Jew, he clearly wasn’t a moral one if he was thieving and yet he still was redeemed by Christ. We don’t know anything about the Centurion other than he was not a Jew, and yet he too - a Pagan - was redeemed. Shit, Christ himself even commands people to be baptised, and yet neither of these were and yet both were redeemed. This is the type of internal self contradiction that exists inherently within Christianity that allows people to be openly gay, and yet genuinely believe that they can still be good Christians.

It is also this reason where I mentioned earlier where yes, you can have and ‘death to all baby killing doctors’ and ‘no capital punishment’ people under the same moniker of ‘Christian’ and both can use their holy texts and not their personal set of morals to justify their positions. Because that’s how badly fucked up the Bible is written.

Hadith is not a document. You don't seem to actually know much about Islam as a religion, for how confidently you are discussing it here in this thread (in fact, the hadith aren't even the Muslim tradition that discusses what to do when someone insults the Prophet; that would be, alternatively, the Quran or sunnah, depending on the exact sect). Hadith is a blanket term for a variety of teachings, traditions, parables, etc. There are different categories that are treated differently by different sets of Islam: some hadith are considered "the word of God", some are considered oral traditions. In fact, it's funny that you think the Quran contains no contradictions; because in Muslim epistemology the hadith only exist as a fundamental way of reconciling and updating the Quran.

I know what the Hadith is and isn't, I wasn't in a position to quote from directly the source of the 'what to do with people who insult the Prophet' at hand so just used the umbrella term 'Hadith' since I wanted to make it clear it wasn't from the Quoran. Meaning I wanted to be clear and differentiate it from the printed word of God (Quoran) and the histories, traditions and biographies of the Prophet. For reference I was thinking of Asama hint Marwan from Sirah Rasul Allah.

And there is sweet fuck all you can use from those sources with which to contradict it!

Then why are there so many divisions with Islam about which sources are the most important and how to interpret them?

There is no gay mosque in the world. And there never can be by using Islam’s internal self doctrine to justify it. That is not true for Christianity simply because the Islamic codification of what is and what is not Haram. If you can find me an example like above, please do so.

Considering you lack even the most fundamental knowledge of how Muslim even operates as a religion, I'm not sure you are the most authoritative source on the "problems" and "needs" of the religion.

I appreciate a well done put down as the next guy, but I trust I have slightly raised your opinion of my knowledge of Islam than first thought, no?

What makes you think all of the violence that comes out of Muslim regions is purely a factor of the religion in and of itself, and not heavily tied into historical, cultural, social, and economic factors?

Aside from Religion being the primary factor that weaves through all the other ones you just mentioned other than say language? Did you really ask me that?

[Crown]

I did no such thing. Quote me doing so or apologise, or I will petition for a reprimand. Here's a hint; no matter how much you cry about it, speaking against Islam is not the same as being anti brown people. I mean, could you imagine if I was an agnostic Indian and I had just read what you said? I don't know whether I would die of laughter or shock. It seems to me the only person who is focused on race here, is you.

OK, I apologise for jumping the gun, I will however still not accept Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris as authorities on this, no matter how many apologist websites you link to. If you have an actual argument to make, do so in your own words.

Points made are points made irrespective of who the source is. You stated something stupid which perfectly paralleled something stated to Hitchens over a decade ago. Accept your comeuppance or slither away, it matters not. But do not seek to slander me again.

I already did so in this very thread:

Wanna' really go full-on rightard, take all Muslims hostage for the deeds of the extremists, treat them with hate, fear and suspicion and make them feel more isolated and unwelcome than ever?

Then the terrorists have achieved their goals. Congratulations.


Boohoo, I ruined your gotcha' moment.

That looks remarkably like a very poor attempt to do anything but answer a very simple question, I’ll ask it again; why were 12 people executed at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris?

Unless you're a cartoonist. Or a filmaker. Or an author ... Ask yourself this; every single media outlet in the west ran with a 'Je Suis Charlie' theme, some even showed the moment a police officer was executed on a sidewalk. How many showed solidarity by reprinting a Charlie Hebdo cover? The list is short, shouldn't take you long to answer.

I got something better. Ask yourself, since getting hit by a car is so much bigger a threat to your life than islamic terrorism (as in thousands of times higher a risk), do you quake in your boots every time you have to cross a busy intersection? How many people in the West fell victim to islamic terrorism? That is what I call a short list, buddy. Right wing extremism at the same time is way more present and dangerous. Sharia Law has little chance of ever getting implemented, bigoted policies however don't.

Who mentioned Sharia Law? Who has dismissed the right wing extremism in this thread? And while I’m becoming increasingly accustomed to you just refusing to answer direct, honest, simple questions and shouldn’t hold my breath that any will be answered whatever will eventually be your ‘reply’ I have to ask again; Ask yourself this; every single media outlet in the west ran with a 'Je Suis Charlie' theme, some even showed the moment a police officer was executed on a sidewalk. How many showed solidarity by reprinting a Charlie Hebdo cover?

Give me a clear and concise answer.

EDIT :: Typo from 'of' to 'or' in first response, and quotation tags on last part.

[Crown]

Who is making such a case here? Understanding why certain societies tends to be more upset by insults does not justify the actions committed by certain individuals of the society. The case I am making is we can't view people who believe in Islam in the same lens as how we view someone who is Christian.

Everyone has a right to be offended, no one has a right to not be offended.

The Asian stance on the matter is quite the opposite, and there is no way both sides are ever going to agree on this.

This had nothing to do with race. And the perpetrators of these acts were Fracophone North Africans. And while Europeans have had a collective more 'the individual' philosophy stretching back to antiquity they too also had blasphemy laws which were equally barbaric and these are now no longer here so making the argument that 'being Asian' somehow precludes the possibility of accepting that truism I stated above is truly the only thing that could be labeled as 'racist' in this thread.

Oh and;

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Drafted by (among others) Charles Malik of Lebanon, P. C. Chang of Republic of China which is now Taiwan & Dr (Mrs). Hansa Mehta of India.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The Asian stance on the matter is quite the opposite, and there is no way both sides are ever going to agree on this.

This had nothing to do with race. And the perpetrators of these acts were Fracophone North Africans. And while Europeans have had a collective more 'the individual' philosophy stretching back to antiquity they too also had blasphemy laws which were equally barbaric and these are now no longer here so making the argument that 'being Asian' somehow precludes the possibility of accepting that truism I stated above is truly the only thing that could be labeled as 'racist' in this thread.

Oh and;

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Drafted by (among others) Charles Malik of Lebanon, P. C. Chang of Republic of China which is now Taiwan & Dr (Mrs). Hansa Mehta of India.

Inconsequential. In Asia, the majority of countries have laws prohibiting hate speech and legalisms are often used in defamation suits. This is not even a question of race; there are value systems here which are utterly incompatible and no amount of papering will change anything.

If this was Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Iran, maybe China, etc. and the list really goes on, Charlie Hebedo would not even exist. In fact, if this was India, the editors and the cartoonists would be dragged out to the street and stoned publicly to a massive cheering crowd. Mind you, these Francophone Islamists adopted a religion steeped in the traditions of Asia where face is important, where tribal and ethnic allegiances are still important etc.

We could debate it all we want, but quite frankly so long as both sides flatly refuse to accept that one side will get offended and one side refuses to tolerate the offence, then these shootings will persist and will not be a one off event.