Is Islam Responsible for the Charlie Hebdo Murders?

[leibowde84]

There is no doubt that since the killing of Ali r.a, there has been a evil ideology called khawarij that kills muslims and also some non-muslims.

So, I would argue that these evil, misguided interpretations held by the terrorists aren't really Islamic Ideologies. In reality, they seem to be misinterpretations of Islamic Ideology, much like how slavery was defended by Biblical adherents in the 19th century in the US.

But, honestly, I enjoy discussing this because I still don't understand why Muslims feel the need/responsibility to defend Muhammad's image. Isn't God capable of handling this himself? Further, why would Islam expect the rest of the world to see an issue with pictures of Muhammad, when this kind of expectation is not held by other religions?

Let me be clear, I think that it is debatable that the cartoons were inappropriate, but inappropriate things are shown in the media every day. I am just having a hard time understanding why there is so much outrage over this.

 

[gsa]

There is no doubt that since the killing of Ali r.a, there has been a evil ideology called khawarij that kills muslims and also some non-muslims.

And, accepting the argument that ISIS is a modern day version of khawarij, it remains Islamic. A minority of Muslims, to be sure, but it is hard to deny their roots in Islam.

 

[gsa]

But this is just a trolling topic something also was discussed many times in different topics is being opened again and again and again, because the purpose is not innocent, purpose is just to serve for Satan.

This thread was prompted by a blog post at Patheos, which is a religious blog with a variety of perspectives. That blog post was published yesterday. I am sorry that you don't like discussing current events in religion.

 

[gsa]

So, I would argue that these evil, misguided interpretations held by the terrorists aren't really Islamic Ideologies. In reality, they seem to be misinterpretations of Islamic Ideology, much like how slavery was defended by Biblical adherents in the 19th century in the US.

But there is a clear biblical basis for supporting slavery, just as there is a clear biblical basis for supporting misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism. In fact, anti-Semitism is a good example, because the liberal interpretation is of very recent vintage. Now biblical anti-Semitism wasn't racial in character (except kind of with New Christians in Spain after the Reconquista), but it supplied the historical foundation for Nazi anti-Semitism.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Evidence against their misguidance is not only that they kill civilians(islam is against that) but also how they justify suicide attacks when every muslim knows suicide is forbidden in islam. They call suicideattacks "Martyrdom operations".
They cite historical events to justify socalled martyrdom operations by saying some companion jumped over wall and fought the enemies while he was surrounded by them, they say the chance to survive that is nihil. If you look logical its clear that such person could be wounded and captured alive, unlike suicidebomber with bomb around his waist never survive that! The suicidebombers and those who support that goes against Quran and hadiths. In Islam suicide is 100% haram prohibited.

 

[gsa]

Evidence against their misguidance is not only that they kill civilians(islam is against that) but also how they justify suicide attacks when every muslim knows suicide is forbidden in islam. They call suicideattacks "Martyrdom operations".
They cite historical events to justify socalled martyrdom operations by saying some companion jumped over wall and fought the enemies while he was surrounded by them, they say the chance to survive that is nihil. If you look logical its clear that such person could be wounded and captured alive, unlike suicidebomber with bomb around his waist never survive that! The suicidebombers and those who support that goes against Quran and hadiths. In Islam suicide is 100% haram prohibited.

You agree that the so-called "martyrdom operations" on the part of, say, Hamas are also prohibited? Because I have read Islamic justifications for them.

 

[leibowde84]

or they have been told that "if you wont do that we are gonna kill all your family members one by one" by someones or they have been told that "if you will do that, we are going to pay 5 million to your family."

There is no limits for scenarios

I understand the "do this or die" mentality, but why do they believe that they'll actually pay their family after they die?

 

[jonathan180iq]

The root question here is more important than trying to place blame somewhere.

Who is responsible when a member of society commits a murder? Is it the murderer or the society?

Your answer to that question makes all the difference.

 

[gsa]

The root question here is more important than trying to place blame somewhere.

Who is responsible when a member of society commits a murder? Is it the murderer or the society?

Your answer to that question makes all the difference.

In this case, there's also a victim blaming problem. Namely, that many apologists have suggested CH "provoked" the murderers.

 

[leibowde84]

The root question here is more important than trying to place blame somewhere.

Who is responsible when a member of society commits a murder? Is it the murderer or the society?

Your answer to that question makes all the difference.

Great point. I think the fact that the Muslim world erupted in protests of the cartoons instead of the actual criminals is very telling in this situation. Instead of focusing on the murderers immorality and guilt, they focused on a freaking cartoon.

 

[gsa]

Great point. I think the fact that the Muslim world erupted in protests of the cartoons instead of the actual criminals is very telling in this situation. Instead of focusing on the murderers immorality and guilt, they focused on a freaking cartoon.

I think that is revealing as well. Particularly when you think about all of the other things that are NOT being protested...

 

[jonathan180iq]

In this case, there's also a victim blaming problem. Namely, that many apologists have suggested CH "provoked" the murderers.

Certainly - like women's dress being blamed for provoking rape or dissenting voices being blamed for damage caused during riots.

In a civilized setting, those types of responses just aren't good enough. They aren't helpful and I believe they stem from a place of self-preservation instead of problem solving.

 

[leibowde84]

Certainly - like women's dress being blamed for provoking rape or dissenting voices being blamed for damage caused during riots.

In a civilized setting, those types of responses just aren't good enough. They aren't helpful and I believe they stem from a place of self-preservation instead of problem solving.

I agree. I also think it is a very dangerous road to go down. It is the same concept as paying ransoms. If we allow people to get away with excuses like this, worse things will happen the next time they feel insulted. And there is one thing that IS for certain ... criticisms of beliefs will never cease. Nor should they.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Great point. I think the fact that the Muslim world erupted in protests of the cartoons instead of the actual criminals is very telling in this situation. Instead of focusing on the murderers immorality and guilt, they focused on a freaking cartoon.

Personally, I hold the individual who committed the act accountable for their behavior, but that doesn't give the society a free pass.

If my son, for example, commits murder, then it is he who should be held accountable for his actions. But if I, as his father (guide, teacher, ruler, preacher, friend, bother, community...everything) don't seriously assess what role I may have played in his actions, then I will be doing a great disservice to the victim, the victim's family, my community, and myself. If I can't assess what went wrong along the way, then those same behaviors are bound to spring up again, possibly with another of my offspring, or possibly with the next generation.

The same is true is all similar situations. Did I push him to pull that trigger or to brandish that knife? Certainly not. But that also doesn't mean that I wasn't somehow, at least slightly, a part of it.

If I, for example, stood back and smugly said "Well, I'm sure that other person deserved it..." what kind of a person would that make me? If a society took that stance, what does it say about that society?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I agree. I also think it is a very dangerous road to go down. It is the same concept as paying ransoms. If we allow people to get away with excuses like this, worse things will happen the next time they feel insulted. And there is one thing that IS for certain ... criticisms of beliefs will never cease. Nor should they.

Absolutely not! Discourse and debate must happen if humanity is to maintain any type of progress. It shouldn't be frowned upon, even if the discourse takes the form of something as simple as ridicule.

Ridicule is a form of human group dynamics that is as natural as walking. It's a simple and primitive form of behavioral correction, albeit immature. Is ridicule really so heinous a crime that it deserves the punishment of death?

 

[leibowde84]

Absolutely not! Discourse and debate must happen if humanity is to maintain any type of progress. It shouldn't be frowned upon, even if the discourse takes the form of something as simple as ridicule.

Ridicule is a form of human group dynamics that is as natural as walking. It's a simple and primitive form of behavioral correction, albeit immature. Is ridicule really so heinous a crime that it deserves the punishment of death?

Great point!!! You are now being followed ... in a good way.

 

[gsa]

Absolutely not! Discourse and debate must happen if humanity is to maintain any type of progress. It shouldn't be frowned upon, even if the discourse takes the form of something as simple as ridicule.

Ridicule is a form of human group dynamics that is as natural as walking. It's a simple and primitive form of behavioral correction, albeit immature. Is ridicule really so heinous a crime that it deserves the punishment of death?

But we have a problem, because there is a religion with over a billion adherents which has a mainstream opinion that apostasy is punishable by death and blasphemy is also punishable, even if not by death.

 

[jonathan180iq]

But we have a problem, because there is a religion with over a billion adherents which has a mainstream opinion that apostasy is punishable by death and blasphemy is also punishable, even if not by death.

So we have one aspect of society that maintains a belief that the majority of society does not hold. The subculture, in this case, will either integrate into the larger culture or they will remain outcasts from the greater group. That's just how human behavior works.

We can split hairs all day long about which individual action needs to corrected and so on. But, ultimately, all of the stress and strife and misery and war and everything else has more to do with one group of our family not wanting play by the majority rules of our family. It's going to correct itself or it's going to be left out at family dinner time.

At some point, the rest of the world will just move on.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Great point!!! You are now being followed ... in a good way.

 

[gsa]

So we have one aspect of society that maintains a belief that the majority of society does not hold. The subculture, in this case, will either integrate into the larger culture or they will remain outcasts from the greater group. That's just how human behavior works.

We can split hairs all day long about which individual action needs to corrected and so on. But, ultimately, all of the stress and strife and misery and war and everything else has more to do with one group of our family not wanting play by the majority rules of our family. It's going to correct itself or it's going to be left out at family dinner time.

At some point, the rest of the world will just move on.

This particular group also has a sizable minority with expansionist aims that may one day have access to weapons of mass destruction, even nuclear arms. Under those circumstances, is it possible or even advisable to simply put the ideology on ignore mode?