Is Islam Responsible for the Charlie Hebdo Murders?

[Bodhitharta]

It's true. They act like bullies about it. Why can't they ignore what others do to their Quran or what others say about their beliefs? Haven't they ever heard of turning the other cheek? They should think of it as a test from Allah. That if they react violently, then they've already failed the test.

Is violence always bad/wrong?

 

[Nietzsche]

In Afghanistan another innocent person was beaten to death for burning the Quran, Koran or however you spell it. There's a video of a guy burning the Koran in honor of the poor woman who was murdered by Islamic religious fanatics. Today I burned a Koran and will burn another one tomorrow. The Koran is just about the dumbest collection of untrue stories there is or ever was and Mohammad never even existed.

That's just intellectually dishonest and historically untrue. There are third-party accounts of Mohammad, some from his enemies. The question is not "did Mohammad exist" it's "was he a prophet or a loon".

 

[leibowde84]

On the contrary, if that were the case it blame specific "ideologies" and not use the term Islamic Ideologies, much of this anger is political and cultural ideology
there is nothing in the Quran that supports killing people who make fun of the Prophet. In American culture you are more likely to get away with it but in some ways even in American culture today you could lose your entire financial life or career simply with an off the cuff remark about minorites, gays or women. So the killing part is cultural and political it doesn't reflect the teachings of Islam even remotely

You mention the Quran, but what about the various Hadiths? You are saying that there is nothing in any Hadith that says that those who insult Islam or Muhammad should be punished? Just genuinely curious, because I don't really know the answer to these questions. I do know that many Muslims adhere to one or several hadiths.

 

[Bodhitharta]

I agree, but what about the people (even on this site) that think that, because the cartoonists were warned at CH, the murders were somehow justified. I still cannot get my head around that concept. If you threaten someone's life for not adhering to your political/religious wishes, you are nothing more than a terrorist/bully. Ignoring something like that takes real maturity.

When the police warn you to stop or they will shoot are they being immature when you don't stop and they shoot?

 

[leibowde84]

When the police warn you to stop or they will shoot are they being immature when you don't stop and they shoot?

What does that have to do with anything. They are police officers with the authority to shoot you. Muslims upset about satirical cartoons have no such right whatsoever. That is a very silly comparison. The two situation have nothing to do with each other.

 

[leibowde84]

When the police warn you to stop or they will shoot are they being immature when you don't stop and they shoot?

Disobeying a police officer should logically make one expect to get shot. Disobeying a religious ideal that one does not adhere to or believe in should not. The most they should expect is another satirical cartoon.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

When the police warn you to stop or they will shoot are they being immature when you don't stop and they shoot?

Different situations. Even though the police have the authority to use violent force, even they must be held accountable for their actions when they violate people's rights with their trigger happy abuse. So how much more should non-law enforcement officers be held accountable for their murderous ways?

 

[Bodhitharta]

You mention the Quran, but what about the various Hadiths? You are saying that there is nothing in any Hadith that says that those who insult Islam or Muhammad should be punished? Just genuinely curious, because I don't really know the answer to these questions. I do know that many Muslims adhere to one or several hadiths.

Islam does not have a hiearchy and as such "All praise is due to ALLAH" while the people should not have went wild over this matter it was simply a matter of love not responsibility. That is the basis of the word FANATIC it's like being a big start with FANS, those fans will kill you. There were tons of people that would kill you over Michael Jackson, Elvis..etc. so it is not a difficult thing to understand....some places denying Jesus meant , it's a human thing mostly based on not accepting what God teaches us and simply following it, we always want to ad a bit here and there and the next thing you know somebodys got to die...tsktsk

 

[leibowde84]

When the police warn you to stop or they will shoot are they being immature when you don't stop and they shoot?

Btw, if it is merely because you refuse to stop making fun of their religious beliefs, then they have no right to shoot you, and they would not only be immature, but also criminals. No one has the right to kill an unarmed person unless they present some kind of physical danger to you. Short of that, it's merely cowardly, cold-blooded murder.

Why didn't they even at least try to fight like men?!

 

[leibowde84]

Islam does not have a hiearchy and as such "All praise is due to ALLAH" while the people should not have went wild over this matter it was simply a matter of love not responsibility. That is the basis of the word FANATIC it's like being a big start with FANS, those fans will kill you. There were tons of people that would kill you over Michael Jackson, Elvis..etc. so it is not a difficult thing to understand....some places denying Jesus meant , it's a human thing mostly based on not accepting what God teaches us and simply following it, we always want to ad a bit here and there and the next thing you know somebodys got to die...tsktsk

People who want to murder on someone else's behalf are insane. Why did you use them as a comparison?

 

[Bodhitharta]

Disobeying a police officer should logically make one expect to get shot. Disobeying a religious ideal that one does not adhere to or believe in should not. The most they should expect is another satirical cartoon.

Poor logic, if I don't believe in a certain law the police will still enforce it no matter what I feel....ask tax dodgers what happens in the good ole USA you can get all your staken and get shot, so if you feel obligated to protect your religion you feel no differently than that officer it's like "Stop or I'll shoot" what do you expect would happen? Take it from another angle if their is an armed robber and he says "everybody lie down on the floor don't move or I will shoot you" and you decide you disagree, what do you think would happen? The person with the capacity to carry out a threat is always right, meaning they will carry it out

 

[Bodhitharta]

People who want to murder on someone else's behalf are insane. Why did you use them as a comparison?

Would you kill to defend anyone at all?

 

[leibowde84]

Poor logic, if I don't believe in a certain law the police will still enforce it no matter what I feel....ask tax dodgers what happens in the good ole USA you can get all your staken and get shot, so if you feel obligated to protect your religion you feel no differently than that officer it's like "Stop or I'll shoot" what do you expect would happen? Take it from another angle if their is an armed robber and he says "everybody lie down on the floor don't move or I will shoot you" and you decide you disagree, what do you think would happen? The person with the capacity to carry out a threat is always right, meaning they will carry it out

In your police example, one's disagreement with the law in no way gives them the right to disobey it. By being a citizen of a country, you are entering into a social contract with the government. By staying in a country, you are agreeing to pay taxes, obey the law, respect authority, etc. Your own subjective disagreement doesn't mean a thing. You are free, however, to work to change the law, but this must be done in a certain way. Protests don't nearly do the trick. You need lawyers/lobbyists.

In your robber example, the victims of the murders are still victims of murder. You could argue that they made a stupid decision in risking their lives, but there is nothing immoral about it. All blame rests solely on the one who pulled the trigger, just as with CH. The best you could do is argue that the cartoonists made a poor decision. All immorality rests in the hands of those who killed unjustifiably in cold blood.

In other words, how does the stupidity of the bank robbery victims effect the moral culpability of the murderers?

 

[leibowde84]

Would you kill to defend anyone at all?

Sure, a living breathing person who was at risk and I could save. But, I would most certainly never ever once kill to "defend" (not sure that is even an applicable word here, as Muhammad is long dead and does not need anyone to "defend" him) a person who was already long deceased. That doesn't even make any sense.

You cannot logically "defend" someone by killing another if there is no threat of physical violence. Unless Muhammad had a gun to his head, your comparison is misguided.

 

[Shad]

Poor logic, if I don't believe in a certain law the police will still enforce it no matter what I feel....ask tax dodgers what happens in the good ole USA you can get all your staken and get shot, so if you feel obligated to protect your religion you feel no differently than that officer it's like "Stop or I'll shoot" what do you expect would happen? Take it from another angle if their is an armed robber and he says "everybody lie down on the floor don't move or I will shoot you" and you decide you disagree, what do you think would happen? The person with the capacity to carry out a threat is always right, meaning they will carry it out

Victim blaming I see. The person with the weapon still has the choice to fire or not. The victim is not the one pulling the trigger. Your logic is flawed, I think you just use the word without understanding any method behind the term.

 

[Deadtroopers]

That's just intellectually dishonest and historically untrue. There are third-party accounts of Mohammad, some from his enemies. The question is not "did Mohammad exist" it's "was he a prophet or a loon".

That's anachronistic. Both St Paul and Mohammed genuinely believed they had communication with an intermediary of their deity. Such things were acceptable to the knowledge base of the time. They are not acceptable to our knowledge base; however "loon" would not be descriptive. See 'Schizotypal Personality'. The tens of thousands who witnessed and continue to witness things at Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzogovina are a modern example. That tens of thousands of others confirm the witness of the individual gives him or her the affirmation, within their belief system, to ignore the witness of the tens of millions who didn't witness the sun dancing in the sky. It's a common psychological experience; they might be mistaken of the explanation of facts but they are not "loons" as in suffering some major psychiatric disorder.

 

[leibowde84]

That's anachronistic. Both St Paul and Mohammed genuinely believed they had communication with an intermediary of their deity. Such things were acceptable to the knowledge base of the time. They are not acceptable to our knowledge base; however "loon" would not be descriptive. See 'Schizotypal Personality'. The tens of thousands who witnessed and continue to witness things at Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzogovina are a modern example. That tens of thousands of others confirm the witness of the individual gives him or her the affirmation, within their belief system, to ignore the witness of the tens of millions who didn't witness the sun dancing in the sky. It's a common psychological experience; they might be mistaken of the explanation of facts but they are not "loons" as in suffering some major psychiatric disorder.

Sometimes I do think Paul had a hallucination brought on by some kind of disorder. I mean, he fell to the ground, started shaking and saw a vision no one else did.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Would you kill to defend anyone at all?

How petty and small is your god and his prophets if you think you need to defend him by harming people? If your god is the God of the universe, the Creator and the Ruler, then He doesn't any little human to use violence to defend His honor.

 

[leibowde84]

How petty and small is your god and his prophets if you think you need to defend him by harming people? If your god is the God of the universe, the Creator and the Ruler, then He doesn't any little human to use violence to defend His honor.

Bam!!

 

[Deadtroopers]

Sometimes I do think Paul had a hallucination brought on by some kind of disorder. I mean, he fell to the ground, started shaking and saw a vision no one else did.

That would be relying on Acts, written at least sixty years after the event and contradicting the little Paul himself says about the matter. Schizotypy seems to be on an order of the same as as left-handedness in the human population. A hell of a lot more people hallucinate things than have a psychiatric problem, much less an actual diagnosis, than is commonly believed. "mental illness" is as much, if not more, a cultural construct than it is a medical fact. Paul and Mohammed were probably mistaken in their attribution, we can say that now; but we could not have said it then. But we are off topic. I am sure we will come back to this where it is more appropriate.