Jump to content

Charlie Hebdo


Crocefisso

Recommended Posts

 

The fact that these individuals participated / orchestrated Islamic terrorism is proof that Muslim extremism isn't socioeconomically motivated? Utter nonsense.

 

All muslim extremists are muslims, but I'd suppose you'd tell me religion has nothing to do with it either.

 

Anyhow, I'm failing to see a point in what you're arguing, other than your first post where you wrote that you shouldn't poke an angry bear with a stick.

I'd imagine that the point is that, while all Muslim extremists are Muslims, not all Muslims are extremists. Sweeping generalizations based on the actions of extremists only hurt those that aren't, and arguing that religion is the sole cause is both massively prejudiced* and insultingly lazy. Do we need a refresher on the cold war, just to bring up one of the most recent examples...?

 

*especially when Gabe was called out for having done just that before this thread started

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Unless many African American thieves hold advanced medical qualifications. 

Well, you managed to list one, so it's not as though we're tripping over them here.

 

 

Osama Bin Laden was a multimillionaire; Ayman al-Zawahiri is a doctor; Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD; Anwar al-Awlaki was a civil engineer by qualification; Abu Yahya al-Libi was, supposedly, an Islamic scholar. Again, in spite of the quibbling, my original point still stands.

I fail to see how any of this is relevant. You've listed five people out of the, what, 2 billion Muslims worldwide? The fact that these individuals participated / orchestrated Islamic terrorism is proof that Muslim extremism isn't socioeconomically motivated? Utter nonsense. The status of the leaders has little if anything to do with the motivations of the actual people to do these things. That would be like me raising Huey Newton as an example of an African-American criminal with a PhD, it's clearly not representative of the majority.

 

 

This is fast becoming a quagmire. It began when you made a false analogy between crime being prevalent among the African-American community and Islamic terrorism. I gave some examples, but you can find more. Most of the 160 British citizens who have gone to fight for Islamic State would be considered middle class. Meanwhile, see scriptural examples below for justifications of murder found in Islam.  

 

 

 

The fact that these individuals participated / orchestrated Islamic terrorism is proof that Muslim extremism isn't socioeconomically motivated? Utter nonsense.

All muslim extremists are muslims, but I'd suppose you'd tell me religion has nothing to do with it either.

 

Anyhow, I'm failing to see a point in what you're arguing, other than your first post where you wrote that you shouldn't poke an angry bear with a stick.

I'd imagine that the point is that, while all Muslim extremists are Muslims, not all Muslims are extremists. Sweeping generalizations based on the actions of extremists only hurt those that aren't, and arguing that religion is the sole cause is both massively prejudiced* and insultingly lazy. Do we need a refresher on the cold war, just to bring up one of the most recent examples...?

 

 

Saying simply that generalisations are bad is an inanity. Sees_all1 alludes to important points about the fact that Muslims, moderate or otherwise, read a holy book which sanctions violence. 

 

To both, I wrote earlier that the Qur'an was peaceful and the hadith violent. I was wrong. Both are violent. Which brings me back to my earlier point, and one which is both politically insensitive and massively important. It is that "moderate" Muslims are effectively selective or partial Muslims, happily choosing to ignore large parts of their own religious canon in order to exist peacefully in Western society. We can't blindly count on their continuing to be - and I heard on a BBC report that since 1989, in France, Muslims have been getting consistently more devout. 

 

Examples of scriptural justification of what we in the West would see as barbarism: 

 

Quran 2:191-193: And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.).

 

Quran 2:216: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

 

Quran 3:56As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.

 

Quran 8:12I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

 

& many others - too numerous to list.

 

From various authoritative collections of hadith:

 

Bukhari 52:117: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

 

Bukhari 52:220Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror.'

 

Abu Dawad 14:2527: The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious.

 

Tabari 9:69: "Killing unbelievers is small matter to us." <-- supposedly spoken by the Prophet Muhammad

 

Ibn Ishaq 992: "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah."

 

& many others. 

 

... In short, when we say that not all Muslims are extremists (true, but only so long as they decide to be 'moderate') or decide that a higher household income would solve the problem, we ignore the root cause.


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The fact that these individuals participated / orchestrated Islamic terrorism is proof that Muslim extremism isn't socioeconomically motivated? Utter nonsense.

All muslim extremists are muslims, but I'd suppose you'd tell me religion has nothing to do with it either.

 

Anyhow, I'm failing to see a point in what you're arguing, other than your first post where you wrote that you shouldn't poke an angry bear with a stick.

I'd imagine that the point is that, while all Muslim extremists are Muslims, not all Muslims are extremists. Sweeping generalizations based on the actions of extremists only hurt those that aren't, and arguing that religion is the sole cause is both massively prejudiced* and insultingly lazy. Do we need a refresher on the cold war, just to bring up one of the most recent examples...?

 

*especially when Gabe was called out for having done just that before this thread started

 

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/pg-2014-07-01-islamic-extremism-10/

 

Need to weigh the countries by Muslim population, but it looks that about 20% of Muslims in the Middle East have an extremist view on suicide bombing against a civilian target.

 

For an act so heinious, I would say that is a large percentage of the general population.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know enough specifically about the Pew Research Center to really judge, but I wouldn't find it surprising if they find a way to tell the American people what they want to hear  :rolleyes: . And also, different countries have different cultures, something Americans tend to have a hard time adjusting to.

"Fight for what you believe in, and believe in what you're fighting for." Can games be art?

---

 

 

cWCZMZO.png

l1M6sfb.png

My blog here if you want to check out my Times articles and other writings! I always appreciate comments/feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How not to debate intelligently:

 

I don't know enough specifically about the Pew Research Center to really judge, but I wouldn't find it surprising if they find a way to tell the American people what they want to hear  :rolleyes: .

Completely unsupported ad hominem.

 

And also, different countries have different cultures, something Americans tend to have a hard time adjusting to.

And another.

  • Like 2

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

Osama Bin Laden was a multimillionaire; Ayman al-Zawahiri is a doctor; Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD; Anwar al-Awlaki was a civil engineer by qualification; Abu Yahya al-Libi was, supposedly, an Islamic scholar. Again, in spite of the quibbling, my original point still stands.

 

In other news, Charlie Hebdo have confirmed that their next issue - the first since the incident - will feature the Prophet Muhammad on the cover. I for one am delighted.

I stopped following this since school is keeping me busy, but an idle thought hit me when I read this. It occurs to me that the act of depicting the prophet mohammed could become a symbol of resistance.

 

Part of me really likes the irony if this becomes the case. I'll sympathise with those who would be legitimately offended since such use would almost certainly be gratuitous instead of 'legitimate' (such as in satire), but it could also be quite fitting. I think that within reason, actions conveying the message that the world won't back down are a good thing. I would draw the line however at actions that force a group of people to act in self defence instead of malicious intent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...

 

Osama Bin Laden was a multimillionaire; Ayman al-Zawahiri is a doctor; Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD; Anwar al-Awlaki was a civil engineer by qualification; Abu Yahya al-Libi was, supposedly, an Islamic scholar. Again, in spite of the quibbling, my original point still stands.

 

In other news, Charlie Hebdo have confirmed that their next issue - the first since the incident - will feature the Prophet Muhammad on the cover. I for one am delighted.

I stopped following this since school is keeping me busy, but an idle thought hit me when I read this. It occurs to me that the act of depicting the prophet mohammed could become a symbol of resistance.

 

Part of me really likes the irony if this becomes the case. I'll sympathise with those who would be legitimately offended since such use would almost certainly be gratuitous instead of 'legitimate' (such as in satire), but it could also be quite fitting. I think that within reason, actions conveying the message that the world won't back down are a good thing. I would draw the line however at actions that force a group of people to act in self defence instead of malicious intent.

 

 

Drawing Muhammad is already a symbol, not of resistance per se, but of the defence of Western values against a vocal, violent minority group which sees itself exempt from (and often in opposition to) the society it lives in. I don't understand the supposed distinction between legitimate and illegitimate satire. And given that Muhammad certainly is an authority figure, he is a prime target, regardless of whether or not French Muslims are a minority. Nobody got irritated when Hebdo drew cartoons involving the Pope and poop, and certainly nobody died. Muslims are not, and cannot be, ring-fenced.

 

Meanwhile, to keep the news flowing, Pakistani clerics have been calling for those who drew the recent Muhammad cartoon to be hung. Which sounds bizarre until you read some of the Islamic scripture I posted above. 

 

P.S. Pew is a reputable pollster.


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The phrase I keep seeing tossed around is "satire punches up", which would not have been the case prior to this attack, and still kind of isn't. The whole thing strikes me as being about as "satirical" as a WW2-era Disney cartoon. The argument that they treat every authority figure equally doesn't really hold water when they may as well be comparing apples and oranges.

 

You see the 20% that do, I see the 80% that don't (and of those that do, I'm sure that large percentage in Palestine don't have any social or economic factors that would motivate such a thing). People going against their religion's scripture in the name of peace is, believe it or not, something that religious people have a habit of doing, and I'm not sure why you're painting it negatively. People are people, being religious or not doesn't make them fundamentally and irrevocably different, at least not more than any other upbringing would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, as long as it's not near a majority that's still alright? I'm quite shocked to see that those numbers are that high. Especially because the question specifically says civilian targets and the purpose is supposed to be to defend Islam (not resistance against a supposed oppressor like in Gaza). The muslim world is in dire need of reformation imho. This is not a problem of Muslims in general, but it IS a problem of Islam.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The phrase I keep seeing tossed around is "satire punches up", which would not have been the case prior to this attack, and still kind of isn't. The whole thing strikes me as being about as "satirical" as a WW2-era Disney cartoon. The argument that they treat every authority figure equally doesn't really hold water when they may as well be comparing apples and oranges.

 

You see the 20% that do, I see the 80% that don't (and of those that do, I'm sure that large percentage in Palestine don't have any social or economic factors that would motivate such a thing). People going against their religion's scripture in the name of peace is, believe it or not, something that religious people have a habit of doing, and I'm not sure why you're painting it negatively. People are people, being religious or not doesn't make them fundamentally and irrevocably different, at least not more than any other upbringing would.

 

The comparison with WW2-era Disney cartoons seems premised on the idea that the Muhammad cartoons involve ethnic stereotyping, something which a British journalist attempted to argue not long ago and which she was torn to pieces for. The nature of caricature demands distortion and exaggeration - and Charlie Hebdo have done it for pretty much all of their targets - and, again, the standard is standard for everybody. Nor is it wrong to treat authority figures differently. In France, both the Catholic Church and the Muslim minority have a long history of demanding exclusion and imposing their beliefs on the populace at large, and both are - and should be - ridiculed for it.

 

As for the whole 80-20 thing, here is an article about inbreeding - which many Islamic clerics recommend in their fatwa - and the link with extremism. In short, many Muslims marry first cousins, leading to horrendous genetic defects. Often they end up retarded, which means lacking skills, which means poverty - but in this chicken and egg scenario, it's clear to me which came first. So one cannot simply say religion is some sort of little adjunct, the last push for the otherwise marginalised. Terror begins and ends with the tenets of Islam. And this is not a case of 80-20: the article states that 55% of UK Muslims are inbred. I shudder to think what the figure in, for example, Pakistan is. 

 

So, when you've got people like this following a faith with exhortations to murder littered throughout their scripture, are we surprised that they are terrorists? Your attitude to the scripture I've posted - "yes, but all religions" - is irresponsible. This is not a case of a few bad eggs in an otherwise peaceful faith, and the idea that this is a problem with individuals rather than the religion and wider culture they come from has been proven wrong by 9/11, by the Istanbul and Madrid attacks, by 7/7, by the Islamic State, and now by the Hebdo attacks. 


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what would this topic be like during the Crusades...

t3aGt.png

 

So I've noticed this thread's regulars all follow similar trends.

 

RPG is constantly dealing with psycho exes.

Muggi reminds us of the joys of polygamy.

Saq is totally oblivious to how much chicks dig him.

I strike out every other week.

Kalphite wages a war against the friend zone.

Randox pretty much stays rational.

Etc, etc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably it would be about something completely different like plans to conquer the Holy Land. 


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During that time, Muslim rulers were viewed as the civilized ones, while Christians slaughtered tens of thousands without second thoughts. Worst case was the plundering of Constantinople, which was Christian at the time...

t3aGt.png

 

So I've noticed this thread's regulars all follow similar trends.

 

RPG is constantly dealing with psycho exes.

Muggi reminds us of the joys of polygamy.

Saq is totally oblivious to how much chicks dig him.

I strike out every other week.

Kalphite wages a war against the friend zone.

Randox pretty much stays rational.

Etc, etc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During that time, Muslim rulers were viewed as the civilized ones, while Christians slaughtered tens of thousands without second thoughts. Worst case was the plundering of Constantinople, which was Christian at the time...

 To an extent they were more civilised was because they tended to be more tolerant and had preserved more ancient Greek philosophy. However, they also couldn't draw maps for toffee and still held slaves while serfdom was coming to an end across Western Europe. And the rule of law was beginning to take shape in Christendom (starting with Magna Carta in 1215), while they just had sharia law which is totally arbitrary. There wasn't the sort of stark contrast we have today with all the "progressive" things on one side of the fence. 

 

As for slaughtering tens of thousands without second thoughts, neither did that much in the middle ages - that was more the conquering dynasties coming in from Asia, first the Mongols, then the Timurids. Genghis Khan and Timur the Lame did much more murdering than any religious ideologue in those times.


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.