12 Reported Murdered at Charlie Hebdo by Islamists

katydid

smacl wrote: »

And yet we still see Islamic regimes handing down death sentences for apostasy, which rather suggests that this barbarity is alive and well long past the seventh century. While the majority of French Muslims are moderate in their practise, this is far from the case in other countries.

It suggests that Islam is being misinterpreted and abused by individuals and regimes for their own purposes.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

It suggests that Islam is being misinterpreted and abused by individuals and regimes for their own purposes.

No!!!!!!!!!

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

No!!!!!!!!!

'fraid so...

MrPudding

Is it not odd that is incident is not being discussed on the Islam forum?

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

katydid wrote: »

It suggests that Islam is being misinterpreted and abused by individuals and regimes for their own purposes.

Or maybe they've got it bang on and are doing exactly what the koran says they should, and you're wrong. What makes you think you know more about islam than they do?

katydid

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Or maybe they've got it bang on and are doing exactly what the koran says they should, and you're wrong. What makes you think you know more about islam than they do?

I don't. But other Muslims do.

robindch

katydid wrote: »

But other Muslims do.

Some other muslims agree. And some disagree. Who's to say who's believing the right thing?

martingriff

robindch wrote: »

Some other muslims agree. And some disagree. Who's to say who's believing the right thing?

Who is to say what you believe the right thing or what I think is rght

robindch

martingriff wrote: »

Who is to say what you believe the right thing or what I think is rght

Well, I think that when I think that something I think is right, then I think it's fair to say that this thing is true, or at least true for me. Why wouldn't the same be true for you or anybody else? So why do you think that one person get to set the rules about what's true and false?

martingriff

robindch wrote: »

Well, I think that when I think that something I think is right, then I think it's fair to say that this thing is true, or at least true for me. Why wouldn't the same be true for you or anybody else? So why do you think that one person get to set the rules about what's true and false?

I don't. The extremists think there right who knows maybe there are I personally do not think they are and a lot of Muslims do not either.

I also do not get what you are saying in your first sentence it a great tongue twister. Are you trying to say what you believe is true is true in your eyes

katydid

robindch wrote: »

Some other muslims agree. And some disagree. Who's to say who's believing the right thing?

I don't know. I'm not Muslim.

robindch

martingriff wrote: »

The extremists think there right who knows maybe there are I personally do not think they are and a lot of Muslims do not either.

Well, a lot of muslim extremists think they're right and a lot of muslim moderates think they're wrong. And vice versa. And all the christians (the right ones and the wrong ones, or the extremists and the moderates or the catholics and the protestants etc) think that all the muslims, moderates and extremists, are both wrong. And the muslims think the christians are wrong. And they all think that the jews are wrong, and the jews think that the muslims and christians are wrong. And so on for all the other religions.

The only think that I agree with religious people is that they're all right when they say that all the others are wrong.

So the religious are right about others, but not about themselves. It would be good if it were the other way around, but that's life I suppose.

Hotblack Desiato

katydid wrote: »

I don't know. I'm not Muslim.

So, ehh, why did you say they were wrong then?

robindch

Meanwhile, in Moscow, many people showed up in sympathy at the French Embassy to be serenaded by a small group of orthodox fundamentalists who approved of the murders:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russian-orthodox-activists-say-charlie-hebdo-shooting-was-just-punishment/514157.html

Moscow Times wrote:

"Among my acquaintances, those who do not condemn the attack against the magazine are pretty much the same people with whom we have always argued about Putin, Crimea, Donbass and so on," Varfolomeyev, a critic of the Kremlin's policies, said in his blog on the Ekho Moskvy website Thursday. "Today there is an abyss between us," he said.

Hotblack Desiato

The very same people would be baying for muslim blood if there was an islamist attack in Moscow.

volchitsa

katydid wrote: »

It suggests that Islam is being misinterpreted and abused by individuals and regimes for their own purposes.

Yes. I heard a European expert on Islam recently (before this, but about young European converts and Muslims going to Syria) and his argument was that when you question these young people, they actually know very little about Islam, and that their actions are in fact a form of nihilism, like American kids shooting up a high school, or young westerners in the 70s in extreme left wing violence either terrorism in Europe or going off to fight with Maoists in Asia and so on.

The cause is a cover, nothing more.

Hotblack Desiato

Letters in today's Irish Times:

Sir, – It’s worth remembering that those champions of free speech, who paid the ultimate price for their art this week at the hands of fundamentalist wretches, would have been potentially subject to a fine of €25,000 for every one of their “blasphemous” cartoons from 2009 to today had they been operating in Ireland.

By voting to remove this restriction against the practice of free speech, the Irish public can show that our support for the brave voices at Charlie Hebdo extends beyond hashtags and that we truly believe in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. – Yours, etc,


Sir, – The dreadful killings in Paris bring to mind the words of Blaise Pascal that “men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it out of religious conviction”. There is implicit in these words a call for responsibility and moderation to the leaders of all world religions. Indeed the events in Paris remind us of the danger inherent in all kinds of absolutism. – Yours, etc,


Sir, – Your report containing the words of Dr Ali Selim of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland (“Dublin based cleric warns of legal action over religious depictions”, January 8th), to the effect that he would be prepared to pursue a legal action under blasphemy legislation if “an Irish media organisation or social media carried a depiction of Muhammad, an act which Muslims find offensive”, constitutes the best argument so far for the repeal of this ridiculous legislation.

Even the fact that such a thing can be contemplated here, in the light of the appalling attack on freedom of expression in Paris, a nursery of democratic republicanism, is calculated to earn Ireland the opprobrium of the rest of the developed world, and deservedly so. – Yours, etc,


Sir, – I was surprised that Pakistan should join the list of countries that have condemned the murder of 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris on Wednesday. Pakistan currently has about 13 people on death row for committing “blasphemy”, including Asia Noreen Bibi, a Christian mother of three. She was working as a farm labourer in the Punjab in June 2009 when she was wrongly accused of insulting Muhammad. She has been held in prison in appalling conditions ever since. Sean Kenny TD is the only politician to have even mentioned her case in the Houses of the Oireachtas. – Yours, etc,


Sir, – I commend The Irish Times for showing solidarity with Charlie Hebdo. In your editorial (January 8th) you characterised the attack as “not only a barbarous act of terrorism but an assault on freedom of expression, one of the fundamental human rights”.

Is it possible, however, to express true solidarity in Ireland, as your newsroom staff did, with the phrase “Je suis Charlie” when the publication of material satirising any religious beliefs is open to prosecution under our blasphemy law? It is a law that criminalises freedom of expression by giving preference to religious beliefs.

I agree with you that it is “one thing to argue about whether particular expressions of satire are appropriate or tasteful but quite another to claim a right not to be offended”. That is why the offense of blasphemy needs to be taken out of our constitution.

We need to be able to say “Je suis Charlie” and mean it. – Yours, etc,


Sir, – The members of Al-Mustafa Islamic Cultural Centre Ireland wish to extend their deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the victims and the people of France .

The killing of journalists in Paris on Wednesday was not only an attack on France but also an assault on Islam and the very freedoms that allow 30 million Muslims to prosper in the West.

Unfortunately there is a problem of extremism and radicalisation among a minority of Muslim youth in western countries. It is the responsibility of Islamic leaders to highlight the peaceful and just message of Islam in which there is no space for extremism. – Yours, etc,

Dr MUHAMMAD

UMAR AL-QADRI,

Al-Mustafa Islamic

Educational

and Cultural Centre,

Blanchardstown, Dublin 15.

katydid

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So, ehh, why did you say they were wrong then?

Because killing people is wrong. And they killed people. I'm using MY moral compass.

robindch

katydid wrote: »

Because killing people is wrong. And they killed people. I'm using MY moral compass.

But hey, Jesus says in Luke 19:27 that anybody who doesn't want him as king should be executed ("But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me").

Are you saying that Jesus has no moral compass or that it's broken? And why is it that you're claiming that your own moral compass and therefore your own truth is better than Jesus truth and his moral compass since he supports executing people and you don't? And what about people who follow Jesus' instruction to execute people? Are they following their own moral compass in choosing to do what he says and then executing people or are they following their own moral compass when they simply execute people, regardless of whether they're doing it because Jesus told them to or not?

I think that's exactly the problem with what you were talking about yesterday evening right there.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

But hey, Jesus says in Luke 19:27 that anybody who doesn't want him as king should be executed ("But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me").

Are you saying that Jesus has no moral compass or that it's broken? And why is it that you're claiming that your own moral compass and therefore your own truth is better than Jesus truth and his moral compass since he supports executing people and you don't? And what about people who follow Jesus' instruction to execute people? Are they following their own moral compass in choosing to do what he says and then executing people or are they following their own moral compass when they simply execute people, regardless of whether they're doing it because Jesus told them to or not?

I think that's exactly the problem with what you were talking about yesterday evening right there.

You are doing what the Islamic fundamentalists do to justify themselves; taking words and sentences out of context. The words you cite are part of a parable, used by Jesus (or rather reported to have been used by Jesus). His disciples were a raggle taggle bunch of fishermen and farmer; he wasn't suggesting that they go out and find his enemies and kill them. He was telling a story of a powerful man, and how he would deal with his enemies, in the context of the way power and authority worked in those days. The point of the parable is that those who reject the authority of a leader will come to a bad end.

When Jesus is cited in his own words, the message is totally different - Matthew 5:43 (Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you), for example.

There are plenty other examples. When Jesus gave "commands" of that kind, he didn't hide them in parables, he spoke directly in the first person. Parables are not meant to be taken literally, but to give food for thought.

It's all about context. Just as it is in the Qur'an, where you will find verses advocating peace and verses advocating war. I don't know enough about the Qur'an to know how to contextualise them properly, but since it is a document dictated to several different scribes by one man over who knows how long, it is not surprising that, like the Bible, it contains inaccuracies, as well as unclear or problematical verses.

The problem is that even fairly moderate Muslims are not prepared to contextualise it in the way Christians contextualise the Bible, as they believe it to be the direct and unchangeable word of God. In some way they manage to close their mind to the obvious problems arising from that, and they pick the bits that suit them, a bit like you did. Those who advocate violence pick the verses that seem to suggest that, while those that advocate peace do likewise. It's NOT that simple.

Cabaal

Yeah, robindch , how could you be so stupid?

It's all about context,..........

Nodin

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Letters in today's Irish Times:

Plus
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/01/10/sauce-for-the-catholic-goose-is-not-sauce-for-the-islamic-gander/

Clermont1098

If you look at the various versions of Islam being put forward its clear the religion has an ambiguity to it. Some imam says x another can say y. There doesn't seem to be any decisive version.

katydid

Clermont1098 wrote: »

If you look at the various versions of Islam being put forward its clear the religion has an ambiguity to it. Some imam says x another can say y. There doesn't seem to be any decisive version.

There can't be, because, whether they admit it or not, they DO interpret the Qur'an. They say they don't, but obviously they do if they pick bits they want to use and ignore other bits.

It's no different from Christianity in that respect. They have their five pillars, Christianity has the Nicene Creed, and all members of the respective religions more or less agree on those. After that, it gets complicated...

katydid

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes. I heard a European expert on Islam recently (before this, but about young European converts and Muslims going to Syria) and his argument was that when you question these young people, they actually know very little about Islam, and that their actions are in fact a form of nihilism, like American kids shooting up a high school, or young westerners in the 70s in extreme left wing violence either terrorism in Europe or going off to fight with Maoists in Asia and so on.

The cause is a cover, nothing more.

I think it's a bit strong to say it's only a cover. I think in many cases they genuinely believe in what they are doing. They are misguided/brainwashed/deluded, but I don't think that for most of them it's a conscious excuse for violence.

volchitsa

katydid wrote: »

I think it's a bit strong to say it's only a cover. I think in many cases they genuinely believe in what they are doing. They are misguided/brainwashed/deluded, but I don't think that for most of them it's a conscious excuse for violence.

Yes, a cover is not quite what I meant, I meant that Islamism, or some other ideology, validates the desire for destruction and violence (or even suicide) that these people are feeling for other reasons.

Mark Hamill

katydid wrote: »

When Jesus is cited in his own words, the message is totally different - Matthew 5:43 (Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you), for example.

There are plenty other examples. When Jesus gave "commands" of that kind, he didn't hide them in parables, he spoke directly in the first person. Parables are not meant to be taken literally, but to give food for thought.

It's all about context.

Like when he is preaching and directly says that all of the old testament laws do, and will, apply for all time:

Matthew 5 wrote:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Hell, he even directly points out in Matthew 15 that the law that children who disrespect their parents should be put to death still applies:

Matthew 15 wrote:

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother' and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

(also the passage where Jesus shows he has no idea what germs are)

Tin Foil Hat

Sir, – It’s worth remembering that those champions of free speech, who paid the ultimate price for their art this week at the hands of fundamentalist wretches, would have been potentially subject to a fine of €25,000 for every one of their “blasphemous” cartoons from 2009 to today had they been operating in Ireland.

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in the country who has copped that the 2009 blasphemy legislation was specifically designed to satisfy the Constitution in such a way that it could never, ever be used in practice.

BUNREACHT NA h&#201 wrote: »

The publication or utterance of
blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter
is an offence which shall be punishable in
accordance with law.

Defamation Act 2009 wrote:

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

Even if the state was so inclined, it would be an absolute waste of time and money to drag a journalist, a cartoonist, a comedian, an artist, or anybody in front of a jury of 12 people who it hopes will unanimously find him/her guilty. It just won't happen. Nobody has ever been prosecuted under this legislation and nobody ever will be.

katydid

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Like when he is preaching and directly says that all of the old testament laws do, and will, apply for all time:


Hell, he even directly points out in Matthew 15 that the law that children who disrespect their parents should be put to death still applies:

(also the passage where Jesus shows he has no idea what germs are)

He says he came to uphold the law, and he did. Not by following every direction of the OT, but by following the spirit of it. What he says in Matthew is the exact opposite of what you claim; he's pointing out that while the religious conservatives claim they are following the old laws to the letter, they are no more doing it than himself, as they don't insist that disrespectful children are executed. They are just hypocrites, because they don't acknowledge that they don't follow them to the letter.

Nodin

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in the country who has copped that the 2009 blasphemy legislation was specifically designed to satisfy the Constitution in such a way that it could never, ever be used in practice.




Even if the state was so inclined, it would be an absolute waste of time and money to drag a journalist, a cartoonist, a comedian, an artist, or anybody in front of a jury of 12 people who it hopes will unanimously find him/her guilty. It just won't happen. Nobody has ever been prosecuted under this legislation and nobody ever will be.

Yet it still has an affect, unfortunately.