Is Islam Responsible for the Charlie Hebdo Murders?

[columbus]

Yes there is a big difference between our ethics.
My belief is "an eye for an eye"......."a life for a life"
Hence my killing is an act of justification.
Now if you justify your killing as murder then you deserve to be killed as well.
So far as superior morals are concerned your act of murder talks for itself.
So far as peace is concerned it can only be achieved through honest justice.

I find that human morality has moved beyond your primitive ethics. I would like to think I am capable of avoiding yet another murder and find a better way to respond. There is not enough information in your bizarre hypothetical to guess what kind of response that would be. But I am confident that the moral thing to do is never murder.
Doesn't mean I can always live up to my standards.

Tom

 

[Cephus]

Now you can disagree with the idea, just like disagree with Nazism. But you're blaming an idea. People can be influenced but that doesn't mean you're controlled. They read and listened to Muslim extremists but you know what they could have done? Not listen to them. But instead they allowed their minds to get warped. Besides people are laying blame on Islam as if all Muslims believe in the same thing. There is more than one branch of Islam for one and not all of them have the same beliefs. Some are conservative some are lenient and some are downright insane though. We should stop laying blame on things that have no relevance.

But religion's whole point is to control. That's why all the religious books are chock full of rules and regulations and commands that tell people how to act, what to think and how to live. Most of us live in secular societies though, which have entirely different sets of rules to follow that supercede the religious rules. Christians still see passages like "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) and passages that tell them to stone unruly children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) but they don't pay attention because secular rules override the Bible in most instances, particularly those that call for violence. Unfortunately, you're looking at people who either didn't live in a secular society, or who came from a place without a secular society, and didn't have those moderating influences on violent behavior. These are not people who can look at a religious teaching and decide this is acceptable or this is not acceptable because they come from a place where it's all acceptable. There isn't a leash to control anti-social behavior. That doesn't stop the passages that command them to act from being part of the same Qur'an that every single Muslim out there reads. They don't have a special Qur'an, any more than crazy radical Christians have a special Bible. Those things they point to really are in those books whether people like it or not. Most parts of the world simply have a secondary filter that allows adherents to ignore them. The Middle East does not. Honestly, if modern-day Muslims and Christians feel so strongly that those parts are not applicable to their religions, they ought to go through and edit them out of the Qur'an and Bible. It would probably make for some very short books. As long as they're there however, as long as these religions hold up those books that actually contain calls for violence within them, the religions are at least peripherally to blame for actions taken in the name of the religion.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I've got nothing against Islam in general. But, if there is some aspect of it that I disagree with, I will certainly argue against it, presenting evidence to back up my claims. This is not intolerance, though. A lot of people confuse the words "acceptance" and "tolerance."

Tolerance is defined as an indulgence for beliefs differing from or conflicting with one’s own.

Acceptance is giving approval without protest or reaction.

So, while people on this site may not accept your beliefs and argue vehemently against them, this does not prove in any way that they are intolerant.

CH was most certainly tolerant, as they were not actively trying to dismantle or criminalize Islam. But, they were not accepting of it as a system of faith and living life. There is a monumental difference.

leibowde84
Note i don't expect any non-Muslim to agree with all my beliefs because if they did then they would have joined me in my beliefs.Hence to be critical and disagree with my beliefs is understandable.All critics and disagreement is as a direct result of ignorance.Now if you think we are going to change our beliefs to satisfy your disagreement then you living in a dream.Note disagreement is simply opinion based and insistence that your disagreement is correct leads to intolerance and that is what is termed as bigotry.

 

[Cephus]

But with National Socialism, for example, we recognize that there are bad ideas, and there are consequences to people believing in bad ideas. What's the difference here?

Plus the fact, you don't have a massive number of people out there holding up Mein Kampf as the one and only authority, except for all those parts about the Jews that they choose to ignore because it's politically incorrect.

 

[leibowde84]

leibowde84
Note i don't expect any non-Muslim to agree with all my beliefs because if they did then they would have joined me in my beliefs.

Then why do you expect non-muslims or the non-religious to agree in your BELIEF that criticizing historical figures through the use of satire should not be permitted or at least punished? I strongly feel that any historical figure is fair-game when it comes to satire. You, of course, have to take the bad with the good (and I would agree that the CH was in bad taste), but that is what freedom is all about.

Hence to be critical and disagree with my beliefs is understandable.All critics and disagreement is as a direct result of ignorance.

Now, you say this, and then go on to say "insistence that your disagreement is correct leads to intolerance and that is what is termed as bigotry." Now, under your own definition, you are expressing your own bigotry. You disagree with my view that no religious belief or figure is immune from satirical criticism. Then, you say that my disagreement is based on ignorance. That is clearly you "insisting" that your claim is correct and mine is incorrect. That is extremely hypocritical. You cannot demand that I take into consideration your point of view, then turn around and state that anything I disagree with is based solely on ignorance.

Now if you think we are going to change our beliefs to satisfy your disagreement then you living in a dream.Note disagreement is simply opinion based and insistence that your disagreement is correct leads to intolerance and that is what is termed as bigotry.

I do not expect anyone to change their beliefs. Any Muslim is more than free to refrain from behavior they find to be contradictory to Islamic teaching. They are free to adhere to Islamic law or even Shria Law, but, of course, they are not permitted to break the law when trying to enforce these laws in a Muslim community (i.e., physically harming or imprisoning anyone against their will), as that would be extremely detrimental to society in general, creating religious vigilantes.

What I do expect is for Muslims to respect my right to live by different standards than they do. While they are not fans of making fun of my beliefs, I would not think twice about it if they did. I would certainly not destroy property or hurt anyone because of it, and, more importantly, I would never try to rationalize the actions of someone who did. It takes a maturity, hard-work, and intelligence/understanding to be able to "turn the other cheek." I think it is honorable to do so in this circumstance.

The Islamic community (to a large degree) is asking that the rest of the world change their ways/laws so that Islam is protected to a degree that it never has been in the past. No other religion has gotten this protection. So, it is clear that there is a notion that Muslims have the right to be free from being offended, when that could not be further from the truth.

Words should always be met with words, not action.

 

[leibowde84]

"leibowde84
Note i don't expect any non-Muslim to agree with all my beliefs because if they did then they would have joined me in my beliefs."

Then why do you expect non-muslims or the non-religious to agree in your BELIEF that criticizing historical figures through the use of satire should not be permitted or at least punished? I strongly feel that any historical figure is fair-game when it comes to satire. You, of course, have to take the bad with the good (and I would agree that the CH was in bad taste), but that is what freedom is all about.

"Hence to be critical and disagree with my beliefs is understandable.All critics and disagreement is as a direct result of ignorance."

Now, you say this, and then go on to say "insistence that your disagreement is correct leads to intolerance and that is what is termed as bigotry." Now, under your own definition, you are expressing your own bigotry. You disagree with my view that no religious belief or figure is immune from satirical criticism. Then, you say that my disagreement is based on ignorance. That is clearly you "insisting" that your claim is correct and mine is incorrect. That is extremely hypocritical. You cannot demand that I take into consideration your point of view, then turn around and state that anything I disagree with is based solely on ignorance.

"Now if you think we are going to change our beliefs to satisfy your disagreement then you living in a dream.Note disagreement is simply opinion based and insistence that your disagreement is correct leads to intolerance and that is what is termed as bigotry."

I do not expect anyone to change their beliefs. Any Muslim is more than free to refrain from behavior they find to be contradictory to Islamic teaching. They are free to adhere to Islamic law or even Shria Law, but, of course, they are not permitted to break the law when trying to enforce these laws in a Muslim community (i.e., physically harming or imprisoning anyone against their will), as that would be extremely detrimental to society in general, creating religious vigilantes.

"What I do expect is for Muslims to respect my right to live by different standards than they do. While they are not fans of making fun of my beliefs, I would not think twice about it if they did. I would certainly not destroy property or hurt anyone because of it, and, more importantly, I would never try to rationalize the actions of someone who did. It takes a maturity, hard-work, and intelligence/understanding to be able to "turn the other cheek." I think it is honorable to do so in this circumstance."

The Islamic community (to a large degree) is asking that the rest of the world change their ways/laws so that Islam is protected to a degree that it never has been in the past. No other religion has gotten this protection. So, it is clear that there is a notion that Muslims have the right to be free from being offended, when that could not be further from the truth.

Words should always be met with words, not action.

 

[jonathan180iq]

It has nothing to do with it. With or without religion, you're still going to have people kill each other.

Certainly. I'm not denying that people are going to do bad things. But the point of this topic was whether or not the murders at CH were caused by a religion, specifically Islam.
In the CH setting, were it not for religious teaching (correct or incorrect) would those people still be alive? Were it not for the religious framework that has somehow permeated several facets of Muslim society, would they or would they not still be going home to their families tonight?

Absolutely, blame and punish the individual. Without question. But why does the framework in which they were taught to behave get a free pass?

People can use religion to justify it but terrible things can be none without religious reasons.

Right. And whatever it is that they chose to use as their justification needs to be examined. It doesn't matter if they claimed their allegiance to the mighty purple sky dragon before killing those people. If that were the case, then the teachings of the mighty purple sky dragon needs to be examined, not just by the outside world but by those who pray to the sky dragon daily.

Most wars aren't even fought over religious reasons. It's due to territory and resources. Tribal people have fought long before our modern politics and organized religion.

The pseudo-religious overtones of organizations like ISIL, who who prey on the immature via appeals to emotion and national or familial pride, are able to seep deep into the minds and hearts of those people who hold Islam dear using what motivator? You'd be foolish not to include Islam in your list of motivators. Do they not claim authority from Allah and then teach from the sayings of their prophet as a rallying cry strong enough to persuade these people to forfeit their lives for the cause?

I don't know which country you're from, but if you were anywhere near the United States in the early 2000s you could witness, first hand, the power of a nation-wide propaganda machine, playing on several different facets of American society as a call to war, for various different reasons. Would you say that only the soldiers who pulled the triggers, or dropped the bombs, on the battlefield were to blame for the deaths of innocent Iraqis and Afghans, or would you undoubtedly include that administration, its foreign policy, the american media, and the populace at large for having a hand in those deaths?

These militants view what they are doing as a holy war, don't they? And how could they do that without internalizing the full authority of a god and his religion to back them? How would they motivate others to join them without invoking that same authority?

 

[xkatz]

Now you can disagree with the idea, just like disagree with Nazism. But you're blaming an idea. People can be influenced but that doesn't mean you're controlled. They read and listened to Muslim extremists but you know what they could have done? Not listen to them. But instead they allowed their minds to get warped. Besides people are laying blame on Islam as if all Muslims believe in the same thing. There is more than one branch of Islam for one and not all of them have the same beliefs. Some are conservative some are lenient and some are downright insane though. We should stop laying blame on things that have no relevance.

Their minds are warped to follow a very traditional/orthodox interpretation of Islam. Yes, there is some variation among Islamic groups, but we can see common practices (eg: Shariah, prayer, polygamy, etc.) that have roots in the religion itself. The problem is not the people themselves, but perhaps the religion they follow, which places certain restrictions on people and exist in opposition to traditional Western values and culture. I have no hatred of Muslims themselves (and admire most whom I have encountered), but rather take issue with the religion they follow. To say the religion itself has no relevance whatsoever is reductionist and only ignoring the real issue at hand to serve the agenda of political correctness.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I find that human morality has moved beyond your primitive ethics

Through primitive ethics i have achieved peace of mind.Peace with my creator and peace with family and friends.I am happy and i am not going to change from my present ethics.Not even for the wealth of this World.

I would like to think I am capable of avoiding yet another murder and find a better way to respond. There is not enough information in your bizarre hypothetical to guess what kind of response that would be. But I am confident that the moral thing to do is never murder.

Mmmm.......took a bit of time but the message did get through.What message....."do not commit murder".

Doesn't mean I can always live up to my standards.

Now just be careful you don't go down to animalistic ethics.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Well what's the point of the question? It is entirely off topic if not related to CH.

Yes its definitely related or else i would not have asked.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Sorry, I thought your question was rude.

Rude....what makes my question rude?

 

[faroukfarouk]

This question has been answered more than once.
Why did you write the post if it weren't applicable to the op?

Tom

You have answered.
Now be patient and let the others answer.

 

[gsa]

Yes its definitely related or else i would not have asked.

So how is it related?

 

[leibowde84]

Through primitive ethics i have achieved peace of mind.Peace with my creator and peace with family and friends.I am happy and i am not going to change from my present ethics.Not even for the wealth of this World.



Mmmm.......took a bit of time but the message did get through.What message....."do not commit murder".



Now just be careful you don't go down to animalistic ethics.

Murder is always wrong. Killing someone might not always be, but murder seems to always be immoral. Even if provoked by the slaying of family members, the moral thing to do would be to turn the other cheek, pray for God to forgive them, and try to move on with your life, honoring those you have lost as much as possible. We all have a responsibility to trust the authorities to bring people to justice. If we all become vigilantes, society will collapse.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Their minds are warped to follow a very traditional/orthodox interpretation of Islam. Yes, there is some variation among Islamic groups, but we can see common practices (eg: Shariah, prayer, polygamy, etc.) that have roots in the religion itself. The problem is not the people themselves, but perhaps the religion they follow, which places certain restrictions on people and exist in opposition to traditional Western values and culture. I have no hatred of Muslims themselves (and admire most whom I have encountered), but rather take issue with the religion they follow. To say the religion itself has no relevance whatsoever is reductionist and only ignoring the real issue at hand to serve the agenda of political correctness.

There are quite a few branches that have very different beliefs despite having some things in common. However if we lay blame on Islam, people will most likely start having the mentality that Muslims are dangerous and to blame and many innocent Muslims will get caught in the crossfire. They already have really and it's going to get worse for Muslims.

But religion's whole point is to control. That's why all the religious books are chock full of rules and regulations and commands that tell people how to act, what to think and how to live. Most of us live in secular societies though, which have entirely different sets of rules to follow that supercede the religious rules. Christians still see passages like "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) and passages that tell them to stone unruly children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) but they don't pay attention because secular rules override the Bible in most instances, particularly those that call for violence. Unfortunately, you're looking at people who either didn't live in a secular society, or who came from a place without a secular society, and didn't have those moderating influences on violent behavior. These are not people who can look at a religious teaching and decide this is acceptable or this is not acceptable because they come from a place where it's all acceptable. There isn't a leash to control anti-social behavior. That doesn't stop the passages that command them to act from being part of the same Qur'an that every single Muslim out there reads. They don't have a special Qur'an, any more than crazy radical Christians have a special Bible. Those things they point to really are in those books whether people like it or not. Most parts of the world simply have a secondary filter that allows adherents to ignore them. The Middle East does not. Honestly, if modern-day Muslims and Christians feel so strongly that those parts are not applicable to their religions, they ought to go through and edit them out of the Qur'an and Bible. It would probably make for some very short books. As long as they're there however, as long as these religions hold up those books that actually contain calls for violence within them, the religions are at least peripherally to blame for actions taken in the name of the religion.

The reason for religion existing was never to control others. It was to communicate and work with the divine. Some religions have become corrupt over the years but they never started out that way. Most Christians and Muslims don't do violent things. Most people in GENERAL don't do this. A lot of them don't follow the book literally word for word. It has to work for them in their society because societies change. Quite a few didn't have problems with slavery, but now it's quite different.

People are just finding reasons to bash religion and it gets old. Most violent people don't even start wars or do violent things in the name of their religion. They do it to obtain territory or some kind of resource. If you took out religion, you'd still have a similar world.

 

[leibowde84]

To all bigots in this thread.
If someone breaks into your house and ties you up.He then rapes your daughter in front of your eyes and then he rapes your loving wife not only in front of you but also in front of your children.Thereafter he uses a chopper and chops up all your loved ones in front of you and while he goes about his heinous crime he smile and laugh at you..Every one of your loved one is killed and your property is looted but he allows you to live.After a few months you recognize this criminal and you report it to the law of the land but the law states there is no proof so there is nothing they could do.Every time you see this criminal he smiles and laugh at you.
My question
What is going to be your reaction?

Hire a good lawyer who will help to push the prosecution to do their job. It is a pretty outlandish scenario, as there is an eye witness who is more than willing to testify and participate in a line-up. But, nevertheless, murdering the guy in cold-blood is not going to improve your situation at all and, since your family members are deceased, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want your life to be ruined either, as you would certainly be incarcerated. So, no, I cannot see how, objectively speaking, murdering the guy would be the best choice.

Obviously, if I was actually in this situation, emotions would cloud my good judgement and I might make a very poor decision. But, there is no way for me to tell that without actually going through it.

Now that I've answered that question, what does that have to do with a satirical drawing from a satirical magazine. I guess you could say, "that's how Muslims feel about Muhammad." But, that would be a severely flawed argument. It would be saying, Muslims get so emotional and offended at things like this that they are unable to act rationally, and should be expected to be violent or destructive. Seems like great reasoning for Islam to step up and teach against this tendency. I'm excited to hear your explanation though.

And, nothing against Islam either. I have tons of friends who are Muslim who acted very civilly in regards to the cartoons. They were disgusted, expressed that disgust to me, we talked about it, I saw where they were coming from, and they actively ignored the magazine. Simple as that. They agreed that the last person who needed their help in defending his name was Muhammad, as he's got God's ear up in heaven (or something of the sort).

 

[gsa]

Rude....what makes my question rude?

You addressed it "to all bigots in this thread" for starters.

 

[faroukfarouk]

He's right. He is not intollerant of your beliefs. He is refusing to live under the rules of Islam. In Europe, cartoons of this sort are part of the culture. It is the responsibility of all of us to accept the FACT that not one of us has the right not to be offended. He was pretty aggressive, but there is nothing to report here. We are free on this site to criticize Islam, its rules, and the belief that all of us should adhere to restrictions that don't make sense to us. I agree, to me, I still cannot understand why someone would get so upset about a drawing mocking a prophet. But, I would like to understand why.

Yes you right he is not just intolerant but extremely intolerant.Now who asked him to live under the rules of Islam.
Now you do have a legit question and if you want an answer then answer my question in post 118.

 

[columbus]

Now just be careiful you don't go down to animalistic ethics.

I am not the one who derives my ethics from the same source as ISIS.
Islam.
Tom

 

[xkatz]

There are quite a few branches that have very different beliefs despite having some things in common. However if we lay blame on Islam, people will most likely start having the mentality that Muslims are dangerous and to blame and many innocent Muslims will get caught in the crossfire. They already have really and it's going to get worse for Muslims.

There are not so different as to be completely different faiths though. People do NEED to realize that Islam can be a dangerous thing. The only place were it has gotten worse for Muslims is mainly (and ironically) in Muslim majority areas (and their Asian peripheries).