Is Islam Responsible for the Charlie Hebdo Murders?

[faroukfarouk]

It's not a big difference to the one getting killed now is it? One should think, is killing someone over a cartoon can really be justified? Even if it offends your religion. The punishment doesn't really fit the crime, does it? Not that the person should really be punished anyway since he has freedom of speech. Also if you want to stick up for Allah, that's not necessary. He's God. I don't think he needs you to stick up for him. Neither does Muhammad.

You talk about freedom of speech so maybe you have the intellect to answer the ff simple question.
Now tell me why they fired Mauric Sinet?
Why the double standards?
What was their intent on publishing those disgusting cartoons?
It easy to point fingers so please don't run away from these important question.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

You talk about freedom of speech so maybe you have the intellect to answer the ff simple question.
Now tell me why they fired Mauric Sinet?
Why the double standards?
What was their intent on publishing those disgusting cartoons?
It easy to point fingers so please don't run away from these important question.

I can't really answer the others but the intent was to get attention from Muslims as well as others. They poked fun at it even though it was offensive, but they weren't hurting anyone, hence death is not warranted.

 

[leibowde84]

You talk about freedom of speech so maybe you have the intellect to answer the ff simple question.
Now tell me why they fired Mauric Sinet?
Why the double standards?
What was their intent on publishing those disgusting cartoons?
It easy to point fingers so please don't run away from these important question.

Assuming that there is a double standard, how would that justify murder overy a cartoon? I agree that of there is a double standard, it should be changed. But murder in the name of Islam is certainly not going to make the situation better. It will bring more scrutiny of Islam in general. Why would you want that?

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Assuming that there is a double standard, how would that justify murder overy a cartoon? I agree that of there is a double standard, it should be changed. But murder in the name of Islam is certainly not going to make the situation better. It will bring more scrutiny of Islam in general. Why would you want that?

I agree. It doesn't make Islam look better where there's people killing in the name of Islam. Like the Buddhists in Burma aren't exactly giving Buddhism a good image. Just recently they jailed someone for 2 years because they depicted the Buddha wearing headphones and it supposedly insulted Buddhists there. Even you are so deeply offended, violence will never be the answer. It shows that you have no restraint over yourself. faroukfarouk, you said yourself Allah is testing you. But he testing you so that don't DON'T do these things. If you murder in the name of Islam or murder in general, even if you think it's somehow justified, than you've already failed the test.

 

[gsa]

If they advocate freedom of religion then they have to be tolerant.Now what has criticism got to do with it.You are free to be critical but be very sensitive to issues that mock ones faith.If you are ignorant of what is sensitive then we will always warn you but if you do not heed the warning then blame yourself.
In 2006, after CH reprinted those disgusting cartoons of our prophet French President Jacques Chirac condemned the publications and warned against such “obvious provocations.”
Now if you provoke with intent then expect a beautiful response.So why not blame the provoker?

We have to be tolerant within certain flexible limits, including incitement to violence. In the US that standard is very high, in most European societies it is much lower. In Europe, there are certain ideologies that are more or less banned altogether.

You speak of provocation, but remember that the actual provocateurs are Muslims who insist on state censorship of criticism of their religion and, when denied, commit acts of violence. You are also foolishly kicking a sleeping giant in the form of European nationalism when you insist on things totally at odds with Western values. If there is another high profile mass killing in France, there will be an opening for the National Front to win the presidency, something that was unthinkable just a decade ago. You are offended by CH? The niqab ban? Just wait for the ban on the hijab. Or much worse.

 

[Looncall]

You call it murder and i call it provocation killing.
Big difference.

This sort of talk fully justifies opposition to islam. Let's have lots more satire until the muslims get themselves civilized!

 

[leibowde84]

This sort of talk fully justifies opposition to islam. Let's have lots more satire until the muslims get themselves civilized!

I have got to assume that the vast majority of Muslims do not support violence as a reaction to a few satirical cartoons. So, let's hope they start speaking out against this sort of brutality.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

This sort of talk fully justifies opposition to islam. Let's have lots more satire until the muslims get themselves civilized!

It doesn't make Islam look good but it's no reason to be hostile to Muslims who haven't done anything wrong. Uncivilized Muslims will be civilized if they want to be. Nothing can make them be more civilized.

I have got to assume that the vast majority of Muslims do not support violence as a reaction to a few satirical cartoons. So, let's hope they start speaking out against this sort of brutality.

There have been Muslims that have condemned such violence. There are Muslims that are offended but people will say "Muslims don't condemn violence!" so loud that they can't hear the Muslims that are condemning such acts. Most Muslims don't do violent things. Most people in GENERAL don't do that.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You talk about freedom of speech so maybe you have the intellect to answer the ff simple question.
Now tell me why they fired Mauric Sinet?
Why the double standards?

Assuming there is a double standard; and assuming you aren't twisting the issue, the answer is in Europe's recent history. Germany, and the nations she conquered or fought under the banner of Nazism in particular, are terrified at the thought of anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head because of what happened the last time it did. Millions of Jews died in what was thought to be the cradle of modern civilisation because the Allied powers knew about it and did nothing. Therein lies a tremendous guilt complex, and rightly so.

 

[leibowde84]

Assuming there is a double standard; and assuming you aren't twisting the issue, the answer is in Europe's recent history. Germany, and the nations she conquered or fought under the banner of Nazism in particular, are terrified at the thought of anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head because of what happened the last time it did. Millions of Jews died in what was thought to be the cradle of modern civilisation because the Allied powers knew about it and did nothing. Therein lies a tremendous guilt complex, and rightly so.

Wow, great point. Another interesting aspect is that there were many Islamic leaders in the Middle East who supported and helped the Nazis during WW2, which probably adds to the issue as well. One thing is for certain, Muslims have not had anything like the Holocaust happen to them in recent history. The only thing that could even come close would be the Crusades, which occured over 800 years ago. WW2 is still a popular topic of discussion.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Wow, great point. Another interesting aspect is that there were many Islamic leaders in the Middle East who supported and helped the Nazis during WW2, which probably adds to the issue as well. One thing is for certain, Muslims have not had anything like the Holocaust happen to them in recent history. The only thing that could even come close would be the Crusades, which occured over 800 years ago. WW2 is still a popular topic of discussion.

I don't know if the fact that it's more recent makes it more important. Whether it happened yesterday or thousands of years ago, it was still significant. But both were unnecessary deaths in the end.

Of course Muslims face persecutions in other countries, just as other religious groups face persecution. Whether it's in Israel, Burma, ect.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't know if the fact that it's more recent makes it more important. Whether it happened yesterday or thousands of years ago, it was still significant. But both were unnecessary deaths in the end.

Of course Muslims face persecutions in other countries, just as other religious groups face persecution. Whether it's in Israel, Burma, ect.

Think about how little we understood about the physical world, science, the global society, etc. back when the crusades occured. It didn't even seem like an immoral thing to do to most at the time. But, now we see it as a military conquest in the name of religion, which can clearly be seen as wrong today (at least by most).

The Halocaust, on the other hand, was only 70-75 years ago. Although anti-semitism was rampant in Europe at the time, people were still disgusted when they realized what the Nazis were doing to the Jewish people. But, even if they were doe at the same time, industrial scale mass-murder would, most-likely, be seen as more troubling.

 

[Cephus]

Why do you often forget that not all Muslim countries have the same beliefs, the same culture or the same laws? You act as if you're a non Muslim in a Muslim majority country, you're killed on the spot. Yes because they are all the same all believe in the same things, right? And you say I'm out of my mind. Muslims face harsh treatment in countries like America, Europe, Israel, Burma, ect. But yes non Muslims do face prosecution as well in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, ect.

You exaggerate to try and prove your point which already shows you're point isn't that convincing. If it was, you wouldn't need to exaggerate in the first place.

And not all Muslim countries are out beheading infidels either. So what? We're clearly only talking about the ones that do. But please, as I mentioned before, show us any case where Muslims in Europe meet as harsh a punishment as non-Muslims in the Middle East. Show me any that are murdered on the street. Go ahead, we'll wait.

 

[Cephus]

If they advocate freedom of religion then they have to be tolerant.Now what has criticism got to do with it.You are free to be critical but be very sensitive to issues that mock ones faith.If you are ignorant of what is sensitive then we will always warn you but if you do not heed the warning then blame yourself.
In 2006, after CH reprinted those disgusting cartoons of our prophet French President Jacques Chirac condemned the publications and warned against such “obvious provocations.”
Now if you provoke with intent then expect a beautiful response.So why not blame the provoker?

But there ought to be absolutely no provocation to violence possible. Muslims could draw all the cartoons about atheists they wanted to, I doubt you'd ever see a single violent assault by atheists, yet these things happen with Muslims all the time. Why are you arguing that violence by Muslims is somehow justified? I don't care what Charlie Hebdo does, I don't care what Salman Rushdie writes, I don't care what anyone says, there is *NEVER* a justification for violence. Ever. So why do these extremist Muslims have no self control and why are you arguing that it's okay?

 

[Theweirdtophat]

And not all Muslim countries are out beheading infidels either. So what? We're clearly only talking about the ones that do. But please, as I mentioned before, show us any case where Muslims in Europe meet as harsh a punishment as non-Muslims in the Middle East. Show me any that are murdered on the street. Go ahead, we'll wait.

There was one case where an atheist murdered several Muslim students. That wasn't some obscure article in the newspaper, that made headlines and it's one of the recent events. But you refer to countries themselves punishing Muslims. They don't behead them on the street like the way you put it, but even a lot of Muslim countries won't behead non Muslims on the street anyway. That's one of many examples but you won't believe me anyway even if I showed you. You'll still believe religion is all some giant maniacal control scheme even though that was not it's original intention. You'll still believe all deities are fake even though it doesn't make any logical sense for civilized people to build statues and temples to deities that don't exist. You'll believe what you want anyway no matter what I say or what evidence I offer.

It's not Europe but look at Burma and see what they've done to non Buddhists, including Muslims. Some have called it outright genocide.

 

[Elusive Truth]

Is Islam Responsible for the Charlie Hebdo Murders?

I voted (no)

The individuals themselves are responsible for committing the crime of murder in the name of Islam.

 

[Cephus]

There was one case where an atheist murdered several Muslim students. That wasn't some obscure article in the newspaper, that made headlines and it's one of the recent events. That's one of many examples but you won't believe me anyway even if I showed you. You'll still believe religion is all some giant maniacal control scheme even though that was not it's original intention. You'll still believe all deities are fake even though it doesn't make any logical sense for civilized people to build statues and temples to deities that don't exist. You'll believe what you want anyway no matter what I say or what evidence I offer.

Yes, over a parking space. There's no evidence that religion had anything to do with it. It was also soundly condemned by everyone, there were no celebrations anywhere that the infidels were dead, like what happens with Islam all the time. This is exactly why you refuse to produce evidence, because you know that your evidence is laughable and can be discredited quickly. It's the same as all theists who pretend they have evidence but refuse to present it. They have no confidence in it at all and with good reason.

And by the way, we build statues to non-existent things all the time. Here's one of Harry Potter:

https://doctorbull****.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/img_7455.jpg?w=616&h=462

Here's one of Gundam:

Are you seriously going to keep playing that ridiculous game?

 

[faroukfarouk]

I can't really answer the others

Why ?
What is the problem?
Are you having problem using your search engine?
Or
Are you avoiding the question?

the intent was to get attention from Muslims as well as others. They poked fun at it even though it was offensive

Not sure if you been reading my postings.
Its not offensive but a deliberate attack.

but they weren't hurting anyone, hence death is not warranted.

No you wrong because you giving your views from the outside.
It was not only hurtful but it was like torture.It was as if some one has chopped my loved ones in front of my eyes.
They were warned but they continued their provocation so they deserved it.

Note see the whole picture before giving your opinion.
There was double standards and if you doubt it then do your own research.
There was a court hearing to stop the publication but this bigotry State ruled in favor of CH.
There was personal appeal from Muslim organ.. begging them not to publish for the sake of peace.
The President warned them to stop the provocation.
It's fairly clear that CH pretensions in favor of free speech are merely an ironic and satirical self-parody.
CH declared war on Islam and paid the price for it.
Religion is a very sensitive issue so you need to be very careful in not making a mockery of any ones belief.
In Islam we take our religious issues very seriously.
To the OP my opinion is CH nor Islam is to be blamed but the French Government.
You make laws to encourage public violence and now you are reaping the fruits of what you have sown.
Ladies and Gents its time for me to carry on into another subject.
I rest my case.

 

[gsa]

There was one case where an atheist murdered several Muslim students. That wasn't some obscure article in the newspaper, that made headlines and it's one of the recent events. But you refer to countries themselves punishing Muslims. They don't behead them on the street like the way you put it, but even a lot of Muslim countries won't behead non Muslims on the street anyway. That's one of many examples but you won't believe me anyway even if I showed you. You'll still believe religion is all some giant maniacal control scheme even though that was not it's original intention. You'll still believe all deities are fake even though it doesn't make any logical sense for civilized people to build statues and temples to deities that don't exist. You'll believe what you want anyway no matter what I say or what evidence I offer.

And this is the problem: There is no atheist doctrine that mandates murder of believers, and in any event there is no evidence that the shooting was in any way related to the religion.

By contrast, the brutal murder of American atheist blogger Avijit Roy, who was hacked to death by Islamist extremists, is quite related to Islam:

Atheist blogger Ahmed Rajib Haider was hacked to death in 2013 by members of a little-known Islamist militant group, triggering nationwide protests by tens of thousands of secular activists.

“The pattern of the killing appeared to be the same as that of previous attack on a celebrated writer,” said Shiblee Noman, assistant commissioner of Dhaka police. “It seems it was carried out by a reactionary fundamentalist group.”


After Haider’s death, Bangladesh’s hardline Islamist groups started to protest against other campaigning bloggers, calling a series of nationwide strikes to demand their deaths, accusing them of blasphemy.The secular government of the Bangladeshi prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, reacted by arresting some atheist bloggers.

Of course, this was South Asia, not the Middle East, and he wasn't decapitated.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Yes, over a parking space. There's no evidence that religion had anything to do with it. It was also soundly condemned by everyone, there were no celebrations anywhere that the infidels were dead, like what happens with Islam all the time. This is exactly why you refuse to produce evidence, because you know that your evidence is laughable and can be discredited quickly. It's the same as all theists who pretend they have evidence but refuse to present it. They have no confidence in it at all and with good reason.

And by the way, we build statues to non-existent things all the time. Here's one of Harry Potter:

https://doctorbull****.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/img_7455.jpg?w=616&h=462

Here's one of Gundam:

Are you seriously going to keep playing that ridiculous game?

I said nobody would build statues and temples to DEITIES that don't exist. Does anyone worship Harry Potter or Gundam? Does anyone do religious rituals and chants based around these two? I actually have a better question. Do you read people's posts first? Seriously?

Of course they didn't just build statues and temples but also wrote numerous literature, i.e. poems, prayers, ect. Also, you probably didn't but look what Burma has done to non Buddhists, including Muslims. But oh it's not in Europe so I guess that doesn't count right?

You're well known for exaggerating on this forum and have this pretentious snooty attitude towards others. I don't have to prove anything to you. Not that it matters because you're so stubborn and close-minded you'll refuse it even if it's in your face. I see, so it's over a PARKING space? Because there's no religious ties, does that make it alright? What does it matter? You say Muslims don't face tough times, yet they clearly are. I'm not brainwashed by the media like you and research this stuff.