Islamic Terrorists France: 12 dead, police gunned down

[Jose Fly]

Even being a Muslim I don't deny that a valid interpretation of Islam was the sole or the main motivator behind this attack. Blasphemy from a Muslim or non-Muslim of this magnitude is punishable by death in any sharia court, there is no difference in opinion in this matter. Anyone who disagrees with sharia law when there is a consensus should check his faith.

The only way I reckon Muslims could condemn this attack is to argue that it tarnishes the image of Islam and actually backfires against the Muslims in a real bad way (overall harm outweighs the benefit) or that they should be first tried in a sharia court or be living under sharia law. No Muslim can defend blasphemy or the right to blaspheme - that is the end of one's faith. There is a time, place, audience and methodology for criticism and Islam welcomes criticism, arguments and debates that take place in the correct platform.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

 

[Alate_One]

You can look through the literature and rhetoric of these folks and they make it pretty clear they are motivated by religion.

Well claiming religion makes a good cover for a lot of things not actually taught by the religion, see the crusades.

It sure doesn't. But religions definitely have a monopoly on the idea of blasphemy.

But blasphemy is just a specific form of offense. There are those that assign such value to animal lives and hate biotechnology that they will commit violent acts.

Death threats over hunting contests?

Granted there are far fewer of them and they are far less violent than the extremism we see associated with Islam, but extremism can come from a variety of sources. I think it is specific ideology rather than religion itself. If it were just the religion, far more Muslims would be terrorists.

Agreed. But don't try and go the route of the fallacy of false equivalency here.

I wouldn't say everything is equal, modern Islam, though mostly in certain countries, has serious issues. But what is the solution? It is hard to instill the idea of freedom of expression and freedom of religion in societies that do not value it.

The magazine in question published blasphemy of pretty well every major religion, yet only a few members of one responded violently.

I am tempted to advise non-violent response "terrorism". For every terrorist act committed, worldwide news media should publish images of Muhammad. More terrorism - more blasphemy.

It'd probably just make everything worse, but killing someone over a cartoon is just plain crazy. Being angry over a foreign military and unjustified killings in your country I can understand, this, is just wacky.

 

[Repentance]

So you're not condemning this.

Under Islamic law the killing of those who make a mockery of the signs of God does not constitute murder but the killing of innocents and those that have not been warned/threatened is murder. I condemn the foolishness and impatience of the Muslims who committed this crime, but God would forgive them if He wills. God would never forgive those who make a mockery of his signs for no or little reason for debate or discussion, specially after being warned.

No Muslim scholar would ever dare sincerely condemn the killing of blasphemers. The only thing to condemn is the unnecessariliness, the overall harm outweighing the benefit, and the lack of defense in behalf of the criminals (the blasphemers) in a sharia court.

 

[Granite]

Under Islamic law the killing of those who make a mockery of the signs of God does not constitute murder but the killing of innocents and those that have not been warned/threatened is murder. I condemn the foolishness and impatience of the Muslims who committed this crime, but God would forgive them if He wills. God would never forgive those who make a mockery of his signs for no or little reason for debate or discussion, specially after being warned.

No Muslim scholar would ever dare sincerely condemn the killing of blasphemers. The only thing to condemn is the unnecessariliness, the overall harm outweighing the benefit, and the lack of defense in behalf of the criminals (the blasphemers) in a sharia court.

So the answer is "no."

I'm glad a guy like you's around to be blatant and give us all a good up-close look at exactly what we're dealing with.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well claiming religion makes a good cover for a lot of things not actually taught by the religion, see the crusades.

No doubt that religion is the justification for a lot of violence throughout history.

But blasphemy is just a specific form of offense. There are those that assign such value to animal lives and hate biotechnology that they will commit violent acts.

Sure. But that doesn't change or minimize the links between religion, blasphemy, and violence.

Granted there are far fewer of them and they are far less violent than the extremism we see associated with Islam, but extremism can come from a variety of sources.

Again, I don't know why you keep bringing this up. I've not once said religion is the only source of violence.

I think it is specific ideology rather than religion itself. If it were just the religion, far more Muslims would be terrorists.

Religion is a specific ideology.

I wouldn't say everything is equal, modern Islam, though mostly in certain countries, has serious issues. But what is the solution? It is hard to instill the idea of freedom of expression and freedom of religion in societies that do not value it.

IMO, it's the long-term promotion of critical thinking and objectivity. Eventually, hopefully humanity will move away from superstition.

The magazine in question published blasphemy of pretty well every major religion, yet only a few members of one responded violently.

I am tempted to advise non-violent response "terrorism". For every terrorist act committed, worldwide news media should publish images of Muhammad. More terrorism - more blasphemy.

It'd probably just make everything worse, but killing someone over a cartoon is just plain crazy. Being angry over a foreign military and unjustified killings in your country I can understand, this, is just wacky.

Yes, I agree that the way to oppose....well, just see my signature.

 

[Town Heretic]

So you're not condemning this.

My first thoughts on this were if his faith, God and prophet are so weak and vulnerable that they require murder as a defense to satire they belong in the dust bin of history and the response of the people of France to this barbaric, brutal and thuggish act deserves an echo throughout civilized countries everywhere. If Islam condones it then Islam must be condemned, repudiated and rejected.

Having said that, I began to look and note that only ISIS is praising these cowards and that Saudi Arabia has denounced the acts as have most Islamic states and The Arab League and Egypt’s al-Azhar university, the foremost theological institution in the Sunni Muslim world.

The Union des Organisations Islamiques de France, rejected the act and Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim thinker and writer said of the killings, " Charlie Hebdo: NO! NO! NO! Contrary to what was apparently said by the killers in the bombing of Charlie Hebdo's headquarters, it is not the Prophet who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted .

My condemnation is absolute and my anger is profound (healthy and a thousand times justified) against this horror!!!."

Dalil Boubakeur, imam of the mosque of Paris, said, "We strongly condemn these kind of acts and we expect the authorities to take the most appropriate measures. Our community is stunned by what just happened. It’s a whole section of our democracy that is seriously affected. This is a deafening declaration of war. Times have changed, and we are now entering a new era of confrontation."

The Union of Islamic Organizations of France declared: “The UOIF condemns in the strongest terms this criminal attack, and these horrible murders. The UOIF expresses its deepest condolences to the families and all the employees of Charlie Weekly.”

There's been an outpouring of outrage and dismay from Muslims world wide. Twitter has been bombarded by numerous responses to the killings, as noted and sampled by The Spectator in an article entitled Not In Our Name. So our Islamic friend, if that's what he actually is, isn't representative of a great many intellectual leaders and ordinary practitioners of Islam, thank God.

 

[fool]

So what are the gun laws like in France?

 

[Alate_One]

So the answer is "no."

I'm glad a guy like you's around to be blatant and give us all a good up-close look at exactly what we're dealing with.

If he is legitimate, not a troll, and represents a widely held opinion, I think we have a bigger problem than I anticipated.

 

[rexlunae]

It's not just the actions of a few French Muslims. As I said, terrorism is a daily occurrence. Today there was a stabbing there. This sort of thing rarely gets reported. The western media act as if we are supposed to think that Israel deserves it. When the Gazans lob hundreds of missiles onto Israeli towns, we are supposed to think that Israel is wrong to retalliate because when they do, Gazans get killed whilst Israelis are protected by shelters and Iron Dome.

There's a lot of binary thinking in the Israel/Palestine conflict, and your comments are a great example of it. I don't dispute Israel's right to defend itself. But that isn't carte blanche for anything and everything that they want to do. In what way does pushing settlements into Palestinian land help them avoid rocket attacks? In what way does continuing to deny statehood to the Palestinians help to protect Israel from rocket attacks?

The way it is reported you are supposed to think that Israel is being unfair by being so well protected and really should allow the Gazans to kill more of them.

Well, there are credible reports of illegal tactics from Israel. I think that those should be pursued with as much vigor as Israel's own security interests.

Israel hasn't annexed the West bank; I have no idea what you are talking about.

I didn't say that it did. But they do support settlers in various parts of the West Bank, and in East Jerusalem.

Israel annexed the Golan heights, a sparsely populated area crucial to Israel's defence.

That isn't a defense for annexing territory of another country. Not to say that I think Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights is illegitimate, but the argument that they need it is insufficient for annexation. It remains disputed territory, and I think that the current situation there is largely justified.

Israel partially controls the West Bank under what is surely now the defunct Oslo agreement. Israel kept the Oslo agreements. The Palestinians went back on them time and again.

Well, that certainly declares your allegiance, in any case.

 

[Repentance]

My first thoughts on this were if his faith, God and prophet are so weak and vulnerable that they require murder as a defense to satire they belong in the dust bin of history and the response of the people of France to this barbaric, brutal and thuggish act deserves an echo throughout civilized countries everywhere. If Islam condones it then Islam must be condemned, repudiated and rejected.

Having said that, I began to look and note that only ISIS is praising these cowards and that Saudi Arabia has denounced the acts as have most Islamic states and The Arab League and Egypt’s al-Azhar university, the foremost theological institution in the Sunni Muslim world.

The Union des Organisations Islamiques de France, rejected the act and Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim thinker and writer said of the killings, " Charlie Hebdo: NO! NO! NO! Contrary to what was apparently said by the killers in the bombing of Charlie Hebdo's headquarters, it is not the Prophet who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted .

My condemnation is absolute and my anger is profound (healthy and a thousand times justified) against this horror!!!."

Dalil Boubakeur, imam of the mosque of Paris, said, "We strongly condemn these kind of acts and we expect the authorities to take the most appropriate measures. Our community is stunned by what just happened. It’s a whole section of our democracy that is seriously affected. This is a deafening declaration of war. Times have changed, and we are now entering a new era of confrontation."

The Union of Islamic Organizations of France declared: “The UOIF condemns in the strongest terms this criminal attack, and these horrible murders. The UOIF expresses its deepest condolences to the families and all the employees of Charlie Weekly.”

There's been an outpouring of outrage and dismay from Muslims world wide. Twitter has been bombarded by numerous responses to the killings, as noted and sampled by The Spectator in an article entitled Not In Our Name. So our Islamic friend, if that's what he actually is, isn't representative of a great many intellectual leaders and ordinary practitioners of Islam, thank God.

I have a problem only with your first paragraph. Your argument is weak - these types of arguments are similar to the argument mentioned in the Quran - "If God wants the hungry to be fed then why not do it Himself?". There is a clear and obvious reason.

Of course these types actions must be condemned for the harm they bring. But you and I must be sure as to why Muslims condemn these kinds of atrocities. There are a lot of other reasons that does not include freedom of expression (which is btw a farce - the same magazine had to face issues of anti-semitism in court, and in most of Europe holocaust denial is a crime). What about the voluntary wearing of the burka - France banned it. Its hypocrisy to say the least. Freedom of expression is just an abstract idea - it can never be achieved in reality. Edward Snowden?

 

[Levolor]

It sucks what religion does to people.

Rather it is what fanaticism does to people.

 

[Nick M]

I'm glad a guy like you's around to be blatant and give us all a good up-close look at exactly what we're dealing with.

I have already told you and shown you. I think you didn't want it to be true.

Under Islamic law the killing of those who make a mockery of the signs of God does not constitute murder

To them, it is justice.

 

[Jose Fly]

Rather it is what fanaticism does to people.

Religious fanaticism, yes.

 

[Nick M]

So what are the gun laws like in France?

They are heavily restricted. Things like 3 shot capacity for a semi auto (permit required for more than 3)went into effect in 2013. That made it so the victims could not defend themselves.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Because the right to bear arms worked for the 10,000 + Americans murdered last year?

It is a side point could you keep you gun fetish fantasies out of this debate.

the view that if the victims had the right to more and bigger guns they would be safe is fantasy concluded to fit your perception what you think sahould happen. It bears no relation to any evidence.

They are heavily restricted. Things like 3 shot capacity for a semi auto (permit required for more than 3)went into effect in 2013. That made it so the victims could not defend themselves.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I piss on the Quaran, Muhammad was a fool and a lair and Allah is a false God and Beelzebub himself.

So come kill me.

Even being a Muslim I don't deny that a valid interpretation of Islam was the sole or the main motivator behind this attack. Blasphemy from a Muslim or non-Muslim of this magnitude is punishable by death in any sharia court, there is no difference in opinion in this matter. Anyone who disagrees with sharia law when there is a consensus should check his faith.

The only way I reckon Muslims could condemn this attack is to argue that it tarnishes the image of Islam and actually backfires against the Muslims in a real bad way (overall harm outweighs the benefit) or that they should be first tried in a sharia court or be living under sharia law. No Muslim can defend blasphemy or the right to blaspheme - that is the end of one's faith. There is a time, place, audience and methodology for criticism and Islam welcomes criticism, arguments and debates that take place in the correct platform.

 

[rexlunae]

Even being a Muslim I don't deny that a valid interpretation of Islam was the sole or the main motivator behind this attack. Blasphemy from a Muslim or non-Muslim of this magnitude is punishable by death in any sharia court, there is no difference in opinion in this matter.

You don't think that's more than a little disproportionate? Or are you not allowed to think for yourself?

Anyone who disagrees with sharia law when there is a consensus should check his faith.

I suggest you keep checking then, if that's your thing.

Nevermind that no Sharia courts have any jurisdiction in France, and nevermind that most of the people involved weren't Muslim and aren't bound to credit a consensus of Sharia courts, any human being who can condone murder in response to a cartoon should check their humanity.

The only way I reckon Muslims could condemn this attack is to argue that it tarnishes the image of Islam and actually backfires against the Muslims in a real bad way (overall harm outweighs the benefit) or that they should be first tried in a sharia court or be living under sharia law.

Or because they're human beings who don't care to see others murdered on the thinnest pretext available.

No Muslim can defend blasphemy or the right to blaspheme

Of course you can. Stop deflecting your responsibility for your own actions. You can recognize that not everyone believes as you do. You can recognize that no one is personally appointed to carry out the enforcement of religious belief. You can recognize that only by the rule of law can we coexist with each other.

- that is the end of one's faith.

If that is true, then let it be ended, and the sooner the better. Mohammed was a child-raping killer anyway. Apparently he also inspires murder to this very day, to guard his fragile ego.

There are many faiths on this planet that we can live with. One that cannot tolerate parody and humor is not one of them. If you feel that this act of brutality is justified, you better hope that you can get over your predilection for it.

There is a time, place, audience and methodology for criticism and Islam welcomes criticism, arguments and debates that take place in the correct platform.

The time is anytime, the place is anywhere, and the audience is free to leave. Islam has no right to dictate to the rest of us where a debate will take place or what form it will take.

 

[republicanchick]

Yeah, your concealed handgun will stop people with machine guns and grenade launchers?

You are an excellent shot, my man.

this is so dumb. A bullet from a 22 handgun reaches a person and kills him regardless of how big the gun it was shot from, killing him just as easily as if it were fired from a machine gun

geez...

 

[republicanchick]

NIck M's avatar

looks like he is lighting his tongue on fire...

not good...

 

[Alate_One]

I have a problem only with your first paragraph. Your argument is weak - these types of arguments are similar to the argument mentioned in the Quran - "If God wants the hungry to be fed then why not do it Himself?". There is a clear and obvious reason.

This isn't about feeding the hungry. Why does any God need people to kill for him/it, and more especially merely for reputation?

Of course these types actions must be condemned for the harm they bring. But you and I must be sure as to why Muslims condemn these kinds of atrocities. There are a lot of other reasons that does not include freedom of expression (which is btw a farce - the same magazine had to face issues of anti-semitism in court, and in most of Europe holocaust denial is a crime). What about the voluntary wearing of the burka - France banned it. Its hypocrisy to say the least. Freedom of expression is just an abstract idea - it can never be achieved in reality. Edward Snowden?

Edward Snowden wasn't going to be murdered in the street last I checked.

As far as the burka, you have a point but nobody was killed for wearing/not wearing it. You're supporting taking lives for a simple offensive act. That cannot be tolerated in a pluralistic society.