Is Islam Responsible for the Charlie Hebdo Murders?

[gsa]

To the original question:
We are judging actions. Actions are taken by people, individuals. They may be influenced or inspired by beliefs or ideologies, but we must not hold those beliefs responsible, but the actions & the individual who did them. Each person is unique.

We cannot 'try' or exact 'justice' to a ideology, but we can with an individual.

Well we can oppose ideologies that inspire negative action though. Does this change simply because those ideologies are religious?

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

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.

Every socalled martyrdom operation is haram, doesnt matter who commits that.
Hamas and the palestinian mujahideen should avoid that. There is honour and glory in engaging the enemy without need for socalled martyrdom operations.

 

[columbus]

If only you understand the meaning of the word "sensitive".
Further they were warned.Their arrogance led to their own deaths.
I justify it 100%.

You are a rather moderate Muslim and you are justifying cold blooded murder in the name of Islam 100%.
Am I missing anything?

On the other hand, there is a Smart muslim guy who is afraid to say what he thinks, because Muslims would punish him. His Islam is being silenced by Muslims.

No wonder the Muslim world is what it is. You can advocate violence freely and he is afraid to advocate peace due to his islamophobia.

Tom

 

[Smart_Guy]

You are the man!! It is frustrating to me (a non-muslim) when the Islamic community refuses to discuss issues like this, claiming that it is merely an attempt to attack Islam. What we know about the murders seems to point to Islamic beliefs. The question was whether the murders were pushed to action because of Islamic teachings. I think the answer could reasonably be substantiated as being yes. Unless some of the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories are proven, I think this is the most reasonable assumption.

We need to give others a chance, listen to what they have to say, understand their point... In the end we are all the same, flesh and blood. Circumstances is what make us misunderstand or go against each other. We are all victims of circumstances.

Deep, eh?

 

[Cephus]

I agree with that. But we have to deal with the religions as they exist today.

Sure, but there are plenty of people running around, screaming that Islam is evil and therefore inferior to Christianity, which is absurd. I agree, Islam is the biggest problem child we have currently, that doesn't mean that it's worse than Christianity, we just have a tighter collar on Christianity than we do on Islam. Both are equally prone to violence once let off the leash.

There are secular dissidents though, and secularism can still be encouraged there.

Only so long as they can keep from being killed, whipped, imprisoned, etc. It isn't the extremists that are doing this either, it's the run of the mill moderate Muslims who are slapping heretics in irons and calling for their execution. There was a recent study of Muslims in the Middle East and it showed that more than half of all Muslims in the Middle East support execution for infidels. It ranged from 64% in Egypt to 78% in Afghanistan. It's not the extremists, it's the culture. The same commands to kill infidels and gays and witches and unruly children appear in the Bible, but here in the West, where we have a secular culture, virtually nobody takes that seriously.

There is clearly a radicalization problem in Europe. In the US, not so much from what I can see, at least not as much of a problem. Of course it is a tiny minority who turn to extremism, but even a small percentage of a billion people can add up quickly.

That's because Europe allows free and unregulated immigration, when they formed the EU, they opened themselves up to just this kind of thing and people saw it beforehand, pointed it out and they ignored it. The U.S. at least has a generally common culture where this isn't acceptable. EU is a wide variety of cultures and the people who are going into the EU and causing problems are almost exclusively immigrants from the Middle East. They largely weren't born into the secular culture and they weren't raised in it, they were born and spent their formative years in a culture that supported religious extremism and taught that the Qur'an came first and manmade laws far down the line. They were largely educated in Madrassas which were Islam first and everything else... well... forget everything else. It's no wonder these people are so screwed up.

 

[Salvador]

With all due respect, NO. You're essentially serving as an apologist for killing people based on a difference of opinion.

I can completely understand that in strict Islamic cultures, any image of Allah or Mohammed is outlawed. And you know what, that's fine. But the entirety of the world doesn't live by those standards and that one facet of Muslim belief hold no jurisdiction over the rest of humanity. There was a time, in certain Christian circles, where any image of the supernatural was considered taboo and they were collected and burned; graven images, as you might call them. But, again, the vast majority of humanity doesn't live by those rules. It is well within the right of any member of a free society to produce and publish any image that they want. You, yourself, in your above post mentioned several times that CH is a religious satire magazine... What, by the very nature of it's title, would you expect a religious satire magazine to publish, Charlie Brown or Garfield cartoons?

Ask yourself this, as a member of modern society. Has there, or has there not, been great societal good done by the publishing of controversial art? I will readily admit that I am not an expert on the cultural histories of many places in the Muslim world but, in the West, we have used cartoons and political art to highlight certain maladies in our culture to help address and/or eliminate them. We have used this type of media to bring things to light and into the public consciousness so that it may be addressed. What would have happened, for instance, if there had been no cartoons in local periodicals during the time of slavery in the United States? Certainly you understand that these cartoons, depicting the vile treatment of human beings at the hands of slave owners, helped to create the public consciousness which lead to growing support for the abolition of slavery? The same scenario is true for countless other examples, all the way from WWII down to Marie Antoinette and the French Revolution. Political and religious cartoons are part of who we are. Now, what would have happened if we limited those cartoons because they probably offended a few people along the way?

Some of these cartoons, and some pieces of art, I don't particularly care for. I found the CH stuff to be quite tasteless, actually. But, so what? The only difference it had on my life is my quick mental acknowledgement that I don't need to read their stuff and then I moved on with my day. If they published pictures, or articles, for example about my family, or my neighbors, or my way of life, and I felt just utterly and justifiably angry at them, would I be within my rights to murder them for disliking me? Of course not. I could sue them for defamation of character. I could deal with those issues like a civilized and modern human being, not a savage. What would you opinion of me be, for example, if I had hired someone to kill the people writing magazine articles about me personally and posting cartoons of me in very unflattering situations, and my only response afterwards was; "Well, I told them they shouldn't do that and I threatened them before but they just kept doing it so I killed them. It should be a lesson to them about what happens when you mock or make fun of the very powerful person of me!"

Should I never tell you how I truly feel out of fear of hurting your feelings?
Am I supposed to refrain from having a strong dissenting opinion to you because you threaten to beat me up?
Is a radical religious satirical magazine supposed to refrain from posting their free and liberal opinion of a religion because they were threatened by a group of radicals?

Of course not.
I am allowed to make any statement about anything I want to because I am a member of a free society. I should not have to live in fear of being beheaded because you don't like my opinions. If you don't want to read what I write, for example, then don't read it... It's really that simple. If certain people are incredibly offended by a magazine full of images that they don't want to see, then why do they spend so much time looking at them and worrying about them? If you don't want to see images of naked women, for example, don't buy a Playboy. If you don't want to hear or see religious satire, don't buy a religious satire magazine...

What you're doing, as we've mentioned earlier in this conversation, is blaming the victim. If a woman who dresses scantily is raped, is she to blame for her rape just because she wanted to dress a certain way or is it the man's fault for having the self control on a spoiled child? Any psychologically healthy and mature individual would think it ludicrous to blame the female . So why would you blame the murder of the writers and editor of a satirical magazine on the deceased?

I do really enjoy most religious and political satire. Even when I was a Christian fundamentalist, I didn't violently object to the satirization of Christianity. If my Christian beliefs were ridiculed, then I would momentarily be upset but then I would quickly get over it. Furthermore, I did realize that I could simply chose to ignore somebody who attacked my Christian beliefs instead of violently attacking him for artistically expressing his difference of opinion with my beliefs. I think the overwhelming majority of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and other non-Islamic religious groups are reasonably tolerant of satirical attacks on their beliefs. I don't object to the satirization of non-Islamic beliefs; because nobody will likely get physically hurt or killed when satire is used to ridicule non-Islamic religious beliefs. However, I realize that some radical Muslims will violently object to satirical attacks on their radical Islamic beliefs. People will inevitably get physically hurt or killed when satire is used to make fun of radical Islamic beliefs. Therefore, I hope we can agree that it's not a good idea to provoke violent bullies into a fight over their beliefs. I think most of us can now agree that Islamic beliefs are a taboo subject and should be off limits to satirical attacks.

 

[columbus]

We need to give others a chance, listen to what they have to say, understand their point...

How can Muslims do that when the culture tends to encourage settling differences with violence?
This causes many peaceful Muslims to be Islamophobic.
Tom

 

[Godobeyer]

What on earth does this have to do with the original post? This is what frustrates people so much. The question is whether Islamic teachings influenced the murderers in this specific case. You, instead of even addressing the question, jump to pointing out how Islam is not the only religion where followers have been violent criminals. This is not being argued against, as this is common knowledge. It certainly is not being discussed on this post.

If you do not think that Islamic teachings had anything to do with the murders at Charlie Hebdo, please explain why. But, at least try to participate in the conversation.

my reply was for provoked thread of gsaseeker .

seems using the card of off-topic is selectable .

I am already talk and made thread about Charlie Hebdo

Algerian secret services warned France on 6 January | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Smart_Guy]

How can Muslims do that when the culture tends to encourage settling differences with violence?

I'm doing it, aren't I?

 

[columbus]

I'm doing it, aren't I?

You are not willing to talk freely due to Islamophobia.
And you are one of my favorite RF people.

Tom

 

[gsa]

my reply was for provoked thread of gsaseeker .

seems using the card of off-topic is selectable .

I am already talk and made thread about Charlie Hebdo

Algerian secret services warned France on 6 January | ReligiousForums.com

Right. Some Muslim posters are upset that we keep bringing up the Islamist murder of cartoonists. But you see, the problem is that the issue will not die, unlike the cartoonists. Those of us who care passionately about freedom of thought will not let the matter die. Moreover, what motivated the OP was a Patheos blog post, as I indicated before, that was published yesterday.

For as long as extremist Muslims murder people for blasphemy, this will be an issue.

 

[Smart_Guy]

You are not willing to talk freely due to Islamophobia.
And you are one of my favorite RF people.
Tom

I didn't know I was Islamophobic

Oh wait, perhaps you mean (somecountry)phobic!

I guess that would do

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Note in Islamic law any disgusting or offensive insult to any of the Prophets is an act of blasphemy.We,In Islam,respect and regard Mary and Jesus(PBBUT) in very high esteem.Now If any of them would have been insulted in disgusting cartoons then the Muslims would have reacted in the same way as that of our Prophet Muhammad(PBBUH).

In Indonesia, drug dealers are commonly given the death penalty. Am I therefore entitled to go and shoot dead a drug dealer in the streets of Australia? Nope.
What you are suggesting is that Islamic law/tradition/belief trumps all other laws in all other countries, and the perpetrators of this violence were justified. There is no way you can justify that without simply suggesting that there is one universal Truth and you hold it, and that you are justified to act based on it without reference to borders/beliefs/humanity. This is the essence of fundamentalism.

Note CH were warned,not once nor twice but many times,but their refusal in retracting their disgusting behaviour caused their own deaths.

This runs to a common formula of victim blaming used by aggressors throughout history.
Women could be warned not to walk down an alley, due to it being dangerous.
Catholics could be warned to steer clear of the Shankhill district in Northern Ireland.

But in truth, the women's rapist is the criminal, and the woman the victim, regardless of how 'sensible' her actions were in your mind.
And if the hypothetical Catholic ran afoul of a Loyalist gang and was killed, guess what? Also the victim.
An aggressor taking violent, illegal, and indefensible action doesn't get to play the 'well, I warned them' card as some free pass.
The law doesn't state you can rape women if they're really asking for it, or that you can murder other humans if they don't listen to what they're damn well told.

Such an attitude is the antipathy of humanity, and deserves not the least amount of respect or audience.

In religion you have to be very careful so far as crossing the red line.

Because if you don't, the 'true believers' aren't content to allow their God to make judgement, but instead take it into their eminently fallible, earthly hands?

CH crossed it and paid a small price.

Small? How so?

If you examine the cause then you understand the effect.

Kinda the point of this thread. Let me pose the OP in a different way, since I have already given my views in terms of Islam, and the fact that we should concentrate on behaviours, and not religion.
If the murderers were not Muslims, do you think they would have murdered?

The question that intellectual minds should ask is what was CH intent in drawing those disgusting cartoons?

Actually, that is NOT the right question. The whole point that you seem to be missing is that I'd much rather have other people provided with the ability to criticise my positions and beliefs than live in a society where such criticism is impossible. The nature of that criticism is beside the point. I can disagree VEHEMENTLY with such criticism or opinion (as indeed, I am right here) and still believe society is healthier for allowing the discourse.

I, personally, like lots of dark humour, but didn't find most of what CH wrote/drew particularly amusing or thought provoking. I think there was was an element of sensationalism, and sales driven controversy. That matters NOT A DAMN BIT in terms of me believing they have the right to their opinion so long as they don't cross the line into inciting violence. Because disagreement and discourse are GOOD. And violence is BAD.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you think that what you call deviant groups justify their actions using muslim scriptures?

I know it wasn't addressed to me, but whether they do or not doesn't determine whether Islam is the actual problem, nor whether their attitudes are representative of the majority of Muslims.

To be clear, I don't subscribe to the theory that the religion is a non-player here. Religion clearly impacts on behaviour in my opinion, and it therefore necessarily follows that some religions can be more negative or more positive in relation to their impact on people than others.

 

[Looncall]

I know it wasn't addressed to me, but whether they do or not doesn't determine whether Islam is the actual problem, nor whether their attitudes are representative of the majority of Muslims.

To be clear, I don't subscribe to the theory that the religion is a non-player here. Religion clearly impacts on behaviour in my opinion, and it therefore necessarily follows that some religions can be more negative or more positive in relation to their impact on people than others.

If it is possible to justify violence using islamic scripture, then islam is the problem. Given how often the koran inveighs against disbelievers, the violence that occurs is to be expected.

 

[Looncall]

Note in Islamic law any disgusting or offensive insult to any of the Prophets is an act of blasphemy.We,In Islam,respect and regard Mary and Jesus(PBBUT) in very high esteem.Now If any of them would have been insulted in disgusting cartoons then the Muslims would have reacted in the same way as that of our Prophet Muhammad(PBBUH).
Note CH were warned,not once nor twice but many times,but their refusal in retracting their disgusting behaviour caused their own deaths.In religion you have to be very careful so far as crossing the red line.CH crossed it and paid a small price.
If you examine the cause then you understand the effect.
The question that intellectual minds should ask is what was CH intent in drawing those disgusting cartoons?

Muslims need to grow up and realize that their superstitious taboos do not apply to non-muslins and that respect must be earned.

 

[Shad]

If only you understand the meaning of the word "sensitive".
Further they were warned.Their arrogance led to their own deaths.
I justify it 100%.

Thus you enable anyone to blame the victim for the crime inflicted upon them. The next time you hear about civilians dying in a bomb attack remember your comment. It is the civilians fault by living in a dangerous place.

 

[faroukfarouk]

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?

 

[NoX]

Farouk, do not feed the trolls !!!!

 

[faroukfarouk]

Farouk, do not feed the trolls !!!!

No trolling.....let the truth be heard.
Hurl the truth at falsehood and let their brains go in a spin.