"Muslims must be held responsible for France terror attacks"

[Riverwolf]

But it's not "extremist" - or at least it's very common - for one religion to impose itself on non-adherents. In this regard, the very mainstream, liberal denominations that push for Christian prayers at municipal council meetings are closer to the Charlie Hebdo attackers than the WBC is. If anything, the WBC is extremist for their *refusal* to impose their beliefs on others.

But their attempts to attack people emotionally are quite extreme.

 

[Harikrish]

The magazine incited Muslims to respond by insulting their prophet. Muslims have drawn a line in the sand to let the world know it is not acceptable to them to allow their prophet to be ridiculed.
There is a long record of their protests. Not too long ago a video depicting the prophet inappropriately resulted in mass protests across several Islamic countries and American embassies were attacked.
Not only was the magazine wrong to incite and spread hate speech by mocking the prophet. They now want the world to defend their foolishness.
You can legislate all the rights you want. But when you step on the faith and beliefs of people so unnecessarily in the name of freedom. That freedom is not justified and it just makes a mockery of the legal system.
The truth is, there would not have been such a violent reaction if the magazine chose to mock someone less loved and respected. Jesus stumbling on the cross, his crown of thorns and Roman soldiers slapping and whipping him have provided entertainment and Hollywood box office hits. In a morbid way to see a would be God tortured and ridiculed and put to death for being a false prophet satisfies the deep disappointment the people of his time experienced.
But we live in a different time. And have learnt not to temper people's faith and beliefs. The French are not known for taking strong positions. Their fight for their rights and country against Germany was not very successful. The Beginning of World War II, 1939 ... It took only six weeks for France to capitulate to the German forces. Je Suis Charlie might be all they have against 1.6 billion Muslims they have just pissed off.

 

[dust1n]

The truth is, there would not have been such a violent reaction if the magazine chose to mock someone less loved and respected.

If a prophet needs assassins to take care of those who mock him, then there isn't much value in that prophet at all.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Those that support such violent actions are absolutely accountable. As is the case with terrorism at the hands of Islamic extremist groups - not all Muslims, even those who may strongly oppose homosexuality would ever partake or knowingly support violent acts against homosexuals.

I think this is an extremely mistaken statement. Most Muslims who do oppose homosexuality, at least the ones in Muslim-majority countries (particularly in the Middle East), knowingly support and encourage persecution of homosexuals, including severe punishments for them. I believe it is both harmful and dangerous to underestimate or overlook the extent of such an issue.

I'm not interested in policing ethics when no harm comes to another. My problem is with those who translate dangerous ethics into violent action against others.

Not all people could carry guns or have access to them during the Iraq war, including many of those who supported the military operations of the U.S. there. It seems to me that encouraging violence is almost as morally reprehensible as committing it by one's own hands, especially because supporters of violence are so often enablers of it regardless of whether or not they engage in it themselves.

 

[Chev Chelios]

This is a difficult one - no, I do not think Moslems should be held responsible as such. That is taking things too far and is rather unfair. But, we must not ignore the fact that these communities are very closed off and insular and close knitted - and having had intimate relations with them I am well placed to say, quite obviously, that these people are generally being radicalised in the same schools, colleges and streets that all these Moslems also frequentmeaning that I remain quite convinced that more often than not many do know who are going 'astray'. Definitley. They just have too much allegience to the 'ummah' to say anything. Therefore, it is these self segretgated socities which really do need to step up in many way, starting with rolling out programmes of de-radicilisation and espousing integration, tolerance etc. This is not complicated stuff. So Moslems do have a functional role in stopping what we are seeing.

In terms of condemnation - then I say a resounding Yes. Moslems absolutely do have a duty to come out en masse and condemn these actions and show the world that this is not Islam. Let's be very clear here - when a cartoon is drawn of Muhammad or a video is made which is seen by Moslems as slander against their faith we consistently see Moslems rally to defend it - it seems to be an absolute duty of the Moslem to come out and protect Islam.

So I find it very interesting that when we see slaughter specifically being carried out in the name of Islam (and which does have much theological backing I must say) we suddenly question why we would expect Moslems to come out and react? WTF? People say absolutely nothing when Moslems coalesce when they deem matters pertain to Islam in a negative way and yet when savagery is carried out in the name of Islam then suddenly Moslems are not expected to come out and defend their faith? Surely the death of innocent people in honour of your religion is far more of an anathema and slanderous than a cartoon?? Surely?? Something is very wrong with this picture and I believe it shows something very important about how Moslems view these events and not least of all how Moslems constantly wish to have it both ways. Well they can't - just like the rest of us.

The fact is, we are seeing a sustained global campaign involving and or supported by millions of Moslems and so unless 'moderate' Moslems are willing to do something about these atrocities carried out in the name of their faith then a BIG question mark will forever hang over the ability of Islam to function in an advanced pleuralistic society. It is not my duty to show the world what Moslems are about - that responsibility falls to the Moslems themselves.

 

[dawny0826]

I think this is an extremely mistaken statement. Most Muslims who do oppose homosexuality, at least the ones in Muslim-majority countries (particularly in the Middle East), knowingly support and encourage persecution of homosexuals, including severe punishments for them. I believe it is both harmful and dangerous to underestimate or overlook the extent of such an issue.

I assure you that I don't under estimate the atrocities that they're capable of. My assumption is that most Muslims in modern, civilized societies do NOT place such extreme views into action. Do Muslims not leave such extreme environments to pursue better lives elsewhere?

Without undermining the danger that exists within Islam, I still choose to acknowledge that not all Islam looks the same and it's important for me to keep this in mind as unfairly, the innocent can be persecuted.

Not all people could carry guns or have access to them during the Iraq war, including many of those who supported the military operations of the U.S. there. It seems to me that encouraging violence is almost as morally reprehensible as committing it by one's own hands, especially because supporters of violence are so often enablers of it regardless of whether or not they engage in it themselves.

Will have to revisit later and provide a more thoughtful response.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I assure you that I don't under estimate the atrocities that they're capable of. My assumption is that most Muslims in modern, civilized societies do NOT place such extreme views into action. Do Muslims not leave such extreme environments to pursue better lives elsewhere?

Without undermining the danger that exists within Islam, I still choose to acknowledge that not all Islam looks the same and it's important for me to keep this in mind as unfairly, the innocent can be persecuted.

You don't have to place an idea into action to support it. I have no doubt that Muslims in civilized societies are at least generally more moderate than most of those in less developed places, however--although it still raises more than one red flag when most people of any given religion support persecution of certain minorities.

Will have to revisit later and provide a more thoughtful response.

Okay.

 

[Godobeyer]

I know that the post was referring to an older thread's title. I'm asking what's wrong with such a thread. Is there a problem if people ask whether the world would be better without any given belief system?

very good question point

for my opinion , some members post questions to provoke more than they want information .

btw, the reall question the how you (we) make difference between honest/normal questions AND provoking questions ?

 

[Debater Slayer]

very good question point

for my opinion , some members post questions to provoke more than they want information .

btw, the reall question the how you (we) make difference between honest/normal questions AND provoking questions ?

Yeah, that's a good point. Some people aim to incite and instigate problems and fruitless arguments with their questions instead of honestly seeking to learn and/or discuss things. I've seen it happen a lot on these forums.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Murdoch says Muslims must be held responsible for France terror attacks | World news | The Guardian

"Rupert Murdoch has been strongly criticised after tweeting that “most Moslems” – even if peaceful – must be held responsible for the religion’s “growing jihadist cancer” in the wake of the terror attacks in France.

The News Corp boss added his influential voice to the global discussion on terror that has convulsed social media since gunmen slaughtered 12 people at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris on Wednesday."

The exact tweet from Murdoch was:
"Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible."

Thoughts? Do Muslims have a responsibility to "destroy their growing jihadist cancer", to condemn and speak out? Or is it nothing to do with the everyday Muslim, and a separate issue that invokes no such responsibility?

Should Muslims be holding marches of their own through big cities to show their condemnation of extremism?

I remember 150,000 people (vast majority of whom were Muslim) marched through London to protest against Israel and show solidarity with the Palestinians during the Israel-Palestine conflict last year. Where is the same outrage and enthusiasm to march and condemn Islamic extremism?

I did not vote because none of the options represent my thoughts. No, muslims and islam is NOT responsible for the murders. Yet those responsible are representatives of islam, despite what others may think. These individuals and their support find strength and justification in their faith. Is that faith misplaced, misguided? What faith isn't? It makes no difference. These individuals claim to represent islam, and their voice is loud. They certainly represent an aspect of islam that is, as far as historical islam goes, legitimate. Sharia law does call for the death penalty for anyone questioning the tenants of islam or mocking the prophet.

Is the average muslim responsible for these acts? Absolutely not.

Is islam responsible? In some ways yes. Just look at some of the posts all over FB and even here in RF justifying the actions. While a muslim who thinks the murders may be justified is not necessarily personally responsible, without a doubt the culture and religion that allows and even encourages one to believe such murders are justice, is responsible.

Does the average muslim have a responsibility to 'weed out' terrorists? Absolutely! The same responsibility all civilized people have to do what they can. If they have the opportunity, and do not, then just as if you saw a christian about to kill someone who drew a tasteless cartoon of jusus didn't speak up, they are responsible.

But the real thing, we all have a responsibility to examine, to introspect, to question, to listen, to consider, and to learn. Every person has this responsibility. I have learned a lot the past few days. Hopefully the overall net effect will be positive. Give the details of the current event, the responsibility of muslims everywhere certainly is highlighted. I believe every muslim is responsible, as outlined above, and to make an affirmation TO THEMSELVES (not me or the freaking world) of what they believe, where they stand.

I'm pretty sure most people, including most muslims, already have affirmed to themselves where they stand.

 

[Yerda]

Rupert Murdoch is an ***.

Rupert Murdoch is a psychopath.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I did not vote because none of the options represent my thoughts. No, muslims and islam is NOT responsible for the murders. Yet those responsible are representatives of islam, despite what others may think.

Who made up that rule?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Who made up that rule?

Why are you calling it a rule?

 

[Harikrish]

The Muslims who applied jihad to deal with the infidels who mocked the prophet have taken responsibility for their actions. They gave their lives to defend the honour of their prophet Mohammed(pbuh).
It was a limited and direct attack on the magazine. 1.6 billion Muslims saw the faces of the martyrs as did those who hold hatred in their heart for the prophet. Freedom of speech was served.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1.6 billion Muslims saw the face of the martyrs as did those who hold hatred in their heart for the prophet. Freedom of speech was served.

It must be incredible infuriating and frustrating to be told how you view someone. I don't you'll find many Muslims here who view them as martyrs.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The Muslims who applied jihad to deal with the infidels who mocked the prophet have taken responsibility for their actions. They gave their lives to defend the honour of their prophet Mohammed(pbuh).
It was a limited and direct attack on the magazine. 1.6 billion Muslims saw the faces of the martyrs as did those who hold hatred in their heart for the prophet. Freedom of speech was served.

What does the quran say about killing other muslims?

[edit to add] It's clear what it says about killing anyone who isn't muslim.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Then
Christians must be held for the drone attacks and invasions.
Jews must be held for the crimes of the zionist regime.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Then
Christians must be held for the drone attacks and invasions.
Jews must be held for the crimes of the zionist regime.

First, I think you'll see most people do not believe muslims should be held responsible for the attacks in france. I certainly do not believe this. But I do believe that aspects of islam that perpetuates murder should be examined. Second, never mind, no second.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

First, I think you'll see most people do not believe muslims should be held responsible for the attacks in france. I certainly do not believe this. But I do believe that aspects of islam that perpetuates murder should be examined. Second, never mind, no second.

The wrong interpretation of quran by deviant groups is already condemned and refuted by scholars.
But i dont think western Media want to show that.

No muslim denied that there are groups who interpret quran to suit their agenda and justify their killings.
During the days of Muawiya r.a and Ali r.a, a group sought justification from Quran to kill both companions.

 

[Godobeyer]

What does the quran say about killing other muslims?

[edit to add] It's clear what it says about killing anyone who isn't muslim.

the verse that you made up as signature are talking in condition in war , so you misquote the Quran is fatal error .

soul Muslim or non-Muslim are forbiden .
killing any innocent soul is forbiden and it's cost eternal hell .