Is Islam Responsible for the Charlie Hebdo Murders?

[gsa]

I have to right to critic other faiths history and other nations history and even my faith followers history .

If i am right , i am the first Muslim member condemned Paris attacks .

after months a anti-Islam member made this thread by attacked/blamed Islam for that crime, i blamed the Western goverment for their wrong policy in Iraq,Syria,Palestine,and Libya , which fuel the civil war and terrorism , which fired up Iraq and Syria,Libya and maybe soon Iran .

since i am here in RF I personally NEVER read a single thread made by non-Muslim critic the policy of West in past or present .

I am Muslim, i had courage and i have the freedom to critic the bad policy or crimes that done by some Muslims , and i made many thread about ISIS and similaire other issues .

I don't discuss it much here, but I am opposed to drones, the Iraq war, and our unquestioned support of Israel, among other foreign policy matters. Moreover, my criticism of Islam is evenhanded; you get the same criticism I offer Christianity.

 

[leibowde84]

FYI CH published cartoons about Prophet Jesus(PBBUH) and Chiristianity, too, causing the magazine being sued 12 times by Catholic Church.
we asked them in a very polite manner(not once,nor twice but thrice) to withdraw those disgusting drawings but they regarded our requests as threats.

Well thank you for making my argument. I agree, the magazine made fun of all religions simultaneously, in a fair way. They do not like organized religion, and it is their God given right to express that view. Whats the big deal?! We all also have the right to ignore it.

I will fight for their right to continue till the day I die.

 

[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.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.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing by expecting everyone to refrain from making fun of Muhammad? Expecting that satirical drawings of muhammad (assuming they aren't obscene in any way, as the CH cartoons surely were not) are subject to punishment of death. No matter how you cut it, this is a concept of Islam that the rest of the world is never going to adhere to. And, I'm sorry, but claiming that the catoonists were "killed justifiably" is tantamount to declaring war on the non-muslim world. This kind of attitude is only going to hurt the Muslims against violence of the world, giving all of the actual haters tons of legitimate feul for their fire, when all they've had till now was irrational hatred of a group of people that did not want anything to do with the horrors committed in the name of their religion.

You said before that "if cartoons like this kept being published, [we] should expect more deaths." I am saying that, if that attitude becomes a common Islamic frame of mind, the peace you claim to want for the world will never be achieved. You are literally claiming to have a rght to not have a historic figure (divinely inspired ONLY IN YOUR MIND and the minds of others who adhere to YOUR RElGION) charatured in a satirical cartoon and poked fun at. Not even picked out of the croud of other religions, as Christianity and Judaism were both commonly criticized, and both had tried taking CH to court (the decent and honorable thing to do as opposed to destructive riots and murders ... don't really understand how you can argue with that point), but, like a responsible secular (by constitution and vote) government, the courts were unwilling to deprive their citizens of the right to make fun of whatever they well wish. It's a beautiful thing when a society agrees together to "take the bad with the good." You realize so many things that you never thought you would love. You change your point of view and put yourself in other people's "shoes" on a regular basis just to get by. There's tons of every kind of person, muslim, hindu, christian, jew, buddhist, unitarian, etc. and everyone just gets along, like it's not a big deal. I tripped on acid in Pennsylvania Dutch Country and had the most interesting talk of my life with an Amish mother who had been selling frut and quilts on the side of the road for 45 years, while the metropolis that is modern day america built up around her. I love the fact that, because religion doesn't matter that much in our society here, we were able to be friends.

GBA!!!!

 

[Smart_Guy]

LoL please teach me how to do that, I'm really disturbed by the "new post" alerts of this topic.

Hmm... looks like being-quoted still gives me alerts. Good, as it allowed me to see a couple of things I wouldn't have seen.

It is around the top right corner of the page, right above the first post box (any page of a thread). It is called "unwatch thread". Click on it, then the rest is self explanatory.

 

[faroukfarouk]

What is the definition of a bigot.

a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
According to the Merriam Webster
"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"
"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".
According to Vocabulary Dictonary
"A bigot is someone who doesn't tolerate people of different races or religions. If you have an uncle who is a bigot and tells racist jokes at Thanksgiving, you may need to talk to him and tell him it's not okay".
According to Urban Dictionary.
A bigot is someone who holds predefined negative views about a class of people. Examples include anti-semites, homophobics, racists, religious extremists of any religion.

Now what is the meaning of intolerant.
not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own.
According to Merriam Webster
unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters.

Now what is rude about the word "bigot".
If you don't like to be called a "bigot" then stop such intolerant behaviour.
You have a right to be critical but that does not mean you right.You have a right to express your opinion and that also does not mean you right..
But if you insist that your opinion is correct then that is intolerance on your part.
Note no matter how critical you become or how you base your opinion its not going to change our principles on our belief system.
Now the question is why the double standards?
Sinet wrote a cartoon associating Jewishness with success. The cartoon joked that Jean Sarkozy, the son of French president Nicolas Sarkozy, would be more successful in life if he formerly converted to Judaism.Jean Sarkozy was getting married to a wealthy Jewish heiress at the time.
Sinet was accused of being “anti-Semitic.” He sued one of his critics for defamation.When the editor of CH asked Sinet to apologize his reply was "I'd rather cut my balls off".Sinet was fired from his job.He was then prosecuted for speech crimes. The plaintiff in the case was the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism.
My point is CH and France employs double standards.What free speech nonsense they are talking about?
What was their intent in drawing those disgusting cartoons?
It was a crime of blasphemy against my beliefs and i justify the price they paid irrespective of who carried out those killings.

 

[faroukfarouk]

The cartoonists were killed before CH had a chance to fire them, right?

Please produce your evidence for the above nonsense.

The above link proves that your claim is false. Take a look and let me know what you think

Please,please.........what nonsense is this.I am referring to the editor Sinet.

 

[oldbadger]

........................They do not like organized religion, and it is their God given right to express that view. Whats the big deal?! We all also have the right to ignore it.
I will fight for their right to continue till the day I die.

...... may you live long............ you'll fight? That's what those murdering terrorists did.... just sayin'.

Sadly, the Mayor of Paris disagrees with you about the right to express views.
Soon after France's calls to support free expression, the Mayor commenced proceedings against Fox News for expressing a viewpoint.
Those French......... one rule this way, another that way!
Je suis Fox! Je suis Fox!

• Paris Votes To Sue Fox News - Huffington Post
  www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/.../paris-sue-fox-news_n_6664090.ht...
  11 Feb 2015 - PARIS (AP) — Paris City Council authorized Mayor Anne Hidalgo on Wednesday to sue U.S. broadcaster Fox News for reporting there are ...

• BBC News - Paris Mayor to sue Fox News over Muslim claims
  BBC - Homepagenews/entertainment-arts-30915395
  21 Jan 2015 - The mayor of Paris has said she will sue Fox News for its inaccurate reporting about the city following the attack on the magazine Charlie ...

• Paris mayor: I'm suing Fox News over false report on Muslim ...
  Latest US news, world news, sports and opinion from the Guardian | theguardian.com | The Guardian › World › Charlie Hebdo attack
  21 Jan 2015 - Anne Hidalgo tells CNN that 'the honor of Paris' has been harmed and ... The mayor of Paris plans to sue Fox News for its reporting on the city ...

 

[Godobeyer]

I don't discuss it much here, but I am opposed to drones, the Iraq war, and our unquestioned support of Israel, among other foreign policy matters. Moreover, my criticism of Islam is evenhanded; you get the same criticism I offer Christianity.

I know that some Western share you same opinion , but i am curious why NO one made thread "by Westerns" critic policy in Syria and Libya and Iraq or Palestine .


Do you ever post a thread or read a thread made by "Western" critic the policy of West in Syria or Iraq or Libya ?

for me never .

 

[faroukfarouk]

Who is 'we'?

"We" refers to the Paris Grand Mosque and the Union of French Islamic Organizations which first sued the newspaper for insulting Muslims.This crime carries a fine of up to 22,500 euros or six months in imprisonment. French courts ultimately ruled in CH favour. "We" then made direct approaches but to no avail.
There was no other alternative.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"We" refers to the Paris Grand Mosque and the Union of French Islamic Organizations which first sued the newspaper for insulting Muslims.This crime carries a fine of up to 22,500 euros or six months in imprisonment. French courts ultimately ruled in CH favour. "We" then made direct approaches but to no avail.
There was no other alternative.

First, thanks for the info. I fully support your rights to explore legal recourse and judgement, for what thats worth.

What do you mean by 'there was no other alternative'?

Ps. In case there was any confusion, I didnt put the word we in quotation marks for any other reason than grammatical.

 

[faroukfarouk]

First, thanks for the info. I fully support your rights to explore legal recourse and judgement, for what thats worth.

What do you mean by 'there was no other alternative'?

Ps. In case there was any confusion, I didnt put the word we in quotation marks for any other reason than grammatical.

The first option was the legal route but you dealing with a bigotry govt so our chances was slim.
The second option was the polite route which failed because they taught they held the upper hand.
So all options of finding a peaceful resolution to a personal criminal attack on Islam has failed.
Now tell me what is the alternative?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Ps. In case there was any confusion, I didnt put the word we in quotation marks for any other reason than grammatical.

Don't let it bug you i did fully understand.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Many Muslims live their lives peacefully and I would like to think that the majority of them do. However the Charlie Hebdo murders show an ugly truth to the side of Islam. The part where it is justifiable to strike back with violence because of a drawing. The part that shocked and horrified me the most was not that it happened. There are a lot of radical Muslims out there that will kill at the drop of a hat. However how many people in rallies around the world seem to unanimously be upset, not at the murder, but at the drawing. Many even lit candles for the dead shooters.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The first option was the legal route but you dealing with a bigotry govt so our chances was slim.
The second option was the polite route which failed because they taught they held the upper hand.
So all options of finding a peaceful resolution to a personal criminal attack on Islam has failed.
Now tell me what is the alternative?

Peaceful protest or retaliatory cartoons. Either that or just rising above the opinions of a magazine editor or cartoonist.

What do you see as the alternative?

Ps. Not sure how you can call the cartoons a personal criminal attack on Islam. Islam isnt a person, nor did the courts judge them illegal. Do you mean an immoral personal attack on the Prophet?

 

[Flankerl]

The first option was the legal route but you dealing with a bigotry govt so our chances was slim.
The second option was the polite route which failed because they taught they held the upper hand.
So all options of finding a peaceful resolution to a personal criminal attack on Islam has failed.
Now tell me what is the alternative?

How about being the bigger Person and accepting that France doesn't give a **** whether Jews, Christians or Muslims feel insulted?

You do realise that CH has made more anti-Christian drawings than anti-Muslim ones right?
And even those pale in the overwhelming numbers of those related to the politics of France.

By your logic the politicians had no other choice but to murder the CH staff because even they aren't protected against something like that.

 

[Looncall]

What is the definition of a bigot.

a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
According to the Merriam Webster
"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"
"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".
According to Vocabulary Dictonary
"A bigot is someone who doesn't tolerate people of different races or religions. If you have an uncle who is a bigot and tells racist jokes at Thanksgiving, you may need to talk to him and tell him it's not okay".
According to Urban Dictionary.
A bigot is someone who holds predefined negative views about a class of people. Examples include anti-semites, homophobics, racists, religious extremists of any religion.

Now what is the meaning of intolerant.
not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own.
According to Merriam Webster
unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters.

Now what is rude about the word "bigot".
If you don't like to be called a "bigot" then stop such intolerant behaviour.
You have a right to be critical but that does not mean you right.You have a right to express your opinion and that also does not mean you right..
But if you insist that your opinion is correct then that is intolerance on your part.
Note no matter how critical you become or how you base your opinion its not going to change our principles on our belief system.
Now the question is why the double standards?
Sinet wrote a cartoon associating Jewishness with success. The cartoon joked that Jean Sarkozy, the son of French president Nicolas Sarkozy, would be more successful in life if he formerly converted to Judaism.Jean Sarkozy was getting married to a wealthy Jewish heiress at the time.
Sinet was accused of being “anti-Semitic.” He sued one of his critics for defamation.When the editor of CH asked Sinet to apologize his reply was "I'd rather cut my balls off".Sinet was fired from his job.He was then prosecuted for speech crimes. The plaintiff in the case was the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism.
My point is CH and France employs double standards.What free speech nonsense they are talking about?
What was their intent in drawing those disgusting cartoons?
It was a crime of blasphemy against my beliefs and i justify the price they paid irrespective of who carried out those killings.

You need to bear in mind that, to non-muslims, islam is an error of fact. Non-muslims have no duty of respect to either Mohammad or to islam. The most that can be asked is toleration.

How can one blaspheme against a god one does not believe to exist?

If you don't like the cartoons, don't read the magazine. The violent responses of muslims in cases like this merely leads to islam being despised by non-muslims.

 

[leibowde84]

Please produce your evidence for the above nonsense.



Please,please.........what nonsense is this.I am referring to the editor Sinet.

1. It seems to have taken quite a while for the "anti-semitic" statement to cause the firing. But, once the cartoonists were killed, all chances of them being fired went out the window. Further, because of the global outrage over the killings, the pressure on CH was completely lifted. Per the article you mentioned, the only concern really was the financial impact the statement could have had on magazine sales. That just wasn't the case with the Muhammad ordeal.

2. The article just showed that it is ridiculous to think that CH only went after Islam. They had Christians, Jews, and Muslims on their back, trying to bring them to court to halt their satirical portrayal of religious figures. You had claimed that there was a double standard. I think this illustrates that this is not the case.

 

[leibowde84]

...... may you live long............ you'll fight? That's what those murdering terrorists did.... just sayin'.

Sadly, the Mayor of Paris disagrees with you about the right to express views.
Soon after France's calls to support free expression, the Mayor commenced proceedings against Fox News for expressing a viewpoint.
Those French......... one rule this way, another that way!
Je suis Fox! Je suis Fox!

• Paris Votes To Sue Fox News - Huffington Post
  www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/.../paris-sue-fox-news_n_6664090.ht...
  11 Feb 2015 - PARIS (AP) — Paris City Council authorized Mayor Anne Hidalgo on Wednesday to sue U.S. broadcaster Fox News for reporting there are ...

• BBC News - Paris Mayor to sue Fox News over Muslim claims
  BBC - Homepagenews/entertainment-arts-30915395
  21 Jan 2015 - The mayor of Paris has said she will sue Fox News for its inaccurate reporting about the city following the attack on the magazine Charlie ...

• Paris mayor: I'm suing Fox News over false report on Muslim ...
  Latest US news, world news, sports and opinion from the Guardian | theguardian.com | The Guardian › World › Charlie Hebdo attack
  21 Jan 2015 - Anne Hidalgo tells CNN that 'the honor of Paris' has been harmed and ... The mayor of Paris plans to sue Fox News for its reporting on the city ...

By "fight", I was only referring to the verbal battlefield. This issue must be fought with argumentation rather than bloodshed. I would never "take up arms" or anything of the sort.

And, it's very sad that the French Mayor is being so hypocritical. But, that does not change the issue we are discussing here in the least. And, I'm sure he will lose that fight in court.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

FYI CH published cartoons about Prophet Jesus(PBBUH) and Chiristianity, too, causing the magazine being sued 12 times by Catholic Church.
we asked them in a very polite manner(not once,nor twice but thrice) to withdraw those disgusting drawings but they regarded our requests as threats.

But did anyone shoot up the place?

 

[leibowde84]

What is the definition of a bigot.

a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
According to the Merriam Webster
"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"
"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".
According to Vocabulary Dictonary
"A bigot is someone who doesn't tolerate people of different races or religions. If you have an uncle who is a bigot and tells racist jokes at Thanksgiving, you may need to talk to him and tell him it's not okay".
According to Urban Dictionary.
A bigot is someone who holds predefined negative views about a class of people. Examples include anti-semites, homophobics, racists, religious extremists of any religion.

Now what is the meaning of intolerant.
not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own.
According to Merriam Webster
unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters.

Now what is rude about the word "bigot".
If you don't like to be called a "bigot" then stop such intolerant behaviour.
You have a right to be critical but that does not mean you right.You have a right to express your opinion and that also does not mean you right..
But if you insist that your opinion is correct then that is intolerance on your part.
Note no matter how critical you become or how you base your opinion its not going to change our principles on our belief system.
Now the question is why the double standards?
Sinet wrote a cartoon associating Jewishness with success. The cartoon joked that Jean Sarkozy, the son of French president Nicolas Sarkozy, would be more successful in life if he formerly converted to Judaism.Jean Sarkozy was getting married to a wealthy Jewish heiress at the time.
Sinet was accused of being “anti-Semitic.” He sued one of his critics for defamation.When the editor of CH asked Sinet to apologize his reply was "I'd rather cut my balls off".Sinet was fired from his job.He was then prosecuted for speech crimes. The plaintiff in the case was the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism.
My point is CH and France employs double standards.What free speech nonsense they are talking about?
What was their intent in drawing those disgusting cartoons?
It was a crime of blasphemy against my beliefs and i justify the price they paid irrespective of who carried out those killings.

You are misusing the word "bigot" according to your own definition in an attempt to cast blame where it is not appropriate. Everyone involved in this discussion is tolerant of your views. Tolerance is not nearly the same as acceptance. And, no one should be expected to "accept" your religious views when they justify cold-blooded murder by pointing at a cartoon . That is unreasonable to assume. This explanation of the common misuse of the word "tolerance" should help:

Tolerance is defined as an indulgence for beliefs differing from or conflicting with one’s own. In other words, it is allowing others to follow their own will. In this case, it is seen by the FACT that not one of us is asking you to give up Islam in general. But, tolerance does not mean that we "accept" your beliefs as being OK. Tolerance, according to the definition of the term, is still apparent even when criticisms are expressed. It is only not present when one side wants to take away the rights of the other. I would strongly suggest that you are, in fact, intolerant of those who feel it acceptable to publish satirical drawings of religious figures. You are actively trying to take away the rights of secular cartoonists. But, I will not succumb to name calling like you.

Acceptance, on the other hand, is giving approval without protest or reaction. People are on this site to express disagreements and criticisms of religious views (for the most part). So, to expect anyone here to "accept" your beliefs without criticism or arguing against them is completely unreasonable.