Peccadillo wrote:yeah sorry but Jesus has copped it a lot worse than Muhammad ever has in the West.
Which is still haram by the way as it is to insult any of the prophets..

This gets a free pass by most Mulims including the radicals, yet insults to Muhammad do not (by the radicals).. for obvious reasons I suppose, but lets get real - from a theological perspective, what is the punishment for insulting Muhammad in any way you want (when outside of Sharia)? The punishment by man upon man is actually nothing.. The Qu'ran talks about punishment in the afterlife, but not in this life. In fact the Qu'ran teaches restraint, from a Muslims perspective excercising restraint will in theory be rewarding in the after-life no?

Again.. we come back to the Hadith and why it is the crux of every problem within Islam and the Muslim ideology.

Quran 3:186
You will surely be tested in your possessions and in yourselves. And you will surely hear from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with Allah much abuse. But if you are patient and fear Allah - indeed, that is of the matters [worthy] of determination.

Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:270:
The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?" He replied in the affirmative.

Yet again Quran teaches restraint and virtue, hadith teaches vengeance and "wickedness". Qu'ran teaches to practice restraint and you will be rewarded, Hadith teaches that the prophet ordered somebody to be killed for blasphemy - and mainstream sunni ideology is to follow the sunnah (to do as the prophet did).

You want to get to the core of the problem with Islam internally and without blaming the west, look no further than Hadith.

However, to those haters (rwo, sports) the issue I and many others is not in dispute to the problem (Islamic radicals) but it is the response to this incident in defending the Hebdo comics, which in my opinion contribute nothing to a harmonious society and should also be condemned (to a lesser degree than violent attacks, obviously).

It is also evident that anti-Islamic sentiment is now clearly on the rise with so many morons blaming Muslims and Islam for the actions of a few.... so quickly have the actions of far-right extremism been forgotten, an ideology which has still caused the largest terror attack Europe has seen in this millennium.

Thats not entirely true tho. There are strong and weak Hadith, which is true, but they aren't the problem the biggest problem is culture being involved in this.

There are also Hadith of where prophet Muhammad was insult by people, but he himself never took action, example theres a Hadith that talks about a non-muslim girl throwing garbage on him overtime he walked by her place, but he never questioned her and when she got ill he was one of the first ones to visit her. Another one when he was going into a city/village of non-muslim to preach Islam and god told him that they would harm him and if they did he would wipe out the village, he still went through and when they spoke down to him and told him to leave they threw rocks at him, which he then made sure no blood of his hit the ground till he was out of the village. If you'd like i could post these Hadith's.

it comes down to how someone interrupts certain things from the Qu'ran or a Hadith, which is the biggest problem even Islamic scholars differ on certain subjects. However its still good to go speak to scholar if you want answers as they would most likely be the knowledgeable one.

I understand the sira but isn't it a massive concern that there are contradictions within sahih (authentic) hadith in the first place?

What differentiated those stories you're talking about with the one about Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf?

How are Muslims supposed to determine how they should respond (to such things as blasphemy)when there are extreme scenarios in sahih hadith like the al-Ashraf example?

I confronted somebody about the sira once before and asked how these 13th century scholars managed to distinguish between what accounts of the prophets actions were authentic and what were a case of chinese whispers. the answer was that the "science" (hah!) of hadith is very complex but also very precise. It sounds like BS to me.

The Qu'ran is seen as the guide and Hadith is seen as the Manual. Well the manual is riddled with contradictions within itself and also conflicts with both common sense and intrinsic morality.

Peccadillo wrote:I understand the sira but isn't it a massive concern that there are contradictions within sahih (authentic) hadith in the first place?

What differentiated those stories you're talking about with the one about Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf?

How are Muslims supposed to determine how they should respond (to such things as blasphemy)when there are extreme scenarios in sahih hadith like the al-Ashraf example?

I confronted somebody about the sira once before and asked how these 13th century scholars managed to distinguish between what accounts of the prophets actions were authentic and what were a case of chinese whispers. the answer was that the "science" (hah!) of hadith is very complex but also very precise. It sounds like BS to me.

The Qu'ran is seen as the guide and Hadith is seen as the Manual. Well the manual is riddled with contradictions within itself and also conflicts with both common sense and intrinsic morality.

Prophet Muhammad himself warned,

"Whenever a Hadith is presented to you in my name, verify it with the Qur'an. If it agrees with the Qur'an, accept it, and if it is in conflict, discard it." [1]

"There is no doubt that, there will be Hadith coming after me, claiming that I have said things. So you must test those Hadith from the Qur'an. If it is really according to the Qur'an only then accept it, otherwise reject it." [2]

Likewise, Salama relates,

""I heard the Prophet saying, "Whoever (intentionally) ascribes to me what I have not said then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire."" [3]

This is why I said its important to speak to scholars who are knowledgable about this and the Qu'ran this how you verify Hadith. The problem with many muslims is they don't and the second they read a Hadith they start to believe and it and say since the Hadith says this we can do this.

Dante wrote:Thankfully we have you FennecFox7 and guest07 to enlighten us. Tell me more about how Islam's god is the one true god and how more legit and real than any god of the ancient pantheon he is

As for you guest07 , your perception of someone who wants to live freely without restrictions or fear , or opression of any kind , is 'who cares'?

...

The rest you said are total jibberish , i don't even bother . But just for your information , if i want to leave my country for whatever reason , it will be for a country that i won't have to fear for what i say btw , so as you can imagine , experiencing the Middle Ages anywhere in the Middle East will never be in my list in the first place

You need a history lesson. In the middle ages, Muslim spain, or al-andalus, was the most tolerant empire in the world. Even the mongol empire made europe look like a bunch of backwards fools. In fact, Saladin in the 13th century went into Jerusalem after winning it in battle and did not kill anyone when he claimed the city. People of ANY religion were free to stay there. Saladin took care of Richard the lionhearted, a christian trying to destroy the middle east.

In the middle ages, the middle east and north africa WAS comparable to the west. Europe was the backwards, ugly part of the world.

And you still didn't answer my question, because you know I'm right. I don't give a shit about religion. I'm a deist/agnostic, I have my own beliefs. But I will correct people who don't know a thing about it and watch FOX news all the time.

Islamophobia is an excuse to attack people of north african, middle eastern, or kurdish origin. Period.

rwo power wrote:

FennecFox7 wrote:No, because in those same countries, if you talk shit about christians and jews, you get crucified. So your point is invalid and hypocritical because you do not acknowledge that fact. And Islam is monothestic, grouped with those two religions. It has nothing to do with greek mythology.

Huh? At least here you can draw satire about the Pope, Christianity etc as much as you like and if there are Christians who take offense, they will not go around and kill whoever did it, but possibly start a lawsuit, after which either the caricature in question has to be deleted (and it is always about single cases, not about satire in a whole) or not, depending on the decision of the court. (And usually there are only lawsuits if a certain living person is directly insulted - Jesus, God or whatever are fair game).

This is where your thinking is screwed up. Tell me, how about the christian extremist in Norway who killed tens of people?? Or the jews who are currently killing in the name of judiasm. Or, when the americans killed off the "impure" native americans for not converting, or the reconquista of 1492, where millions of my people were slaughtered. Or la revolution in algeria, where the french killed millions of algerians and forced them to become second rate citizens. Or in africa, where the borders of the modern day countries were drawn on a piece of paper like childs play, which then ensued the mass civil wars we see today. Look no further then rwanda for that. Or the racism against algerians and morrocans for being of "muslim" descent in France until very recently. Want me to keep going? I can keep listing atrocities done in the name of the cross, or european supremacy. Wasn't too long ago when the amazigh jews were being burned to a crisp in southern spain was it now??

Now, that attack MAY or MAYNOT have had any relevance to the drawing. Which leads me to believe you are eating what BBC and FOX news feeds you. How are you 100% certain that christians or jews don't have any extremism in their ranks. Because I have bad news for you if you are certain.

anders breivik killed 77 but no, far-right nutjobs would prefer to remind us of the murder of Lee Rigby by "Islamic fundamentalists" than somebody who supported their opinions (about Islamisation of Europe)

Well, I wrote "here" meaning "where I live". And here I haven't heard about Christians killing people making fun of Christianity in any recent time. (And with the lawsuit I meant for example the Catholic Church going with a lawsuit against the Titanic Magazin who printed the then ruling Pope on their title having urinated and defecated on himself.)

FennecFox7 wrote:

rwo power wrote:

FennecFox7 wrote:No, because in those same countries, if you talk shit about christians and jews, you get crucified. So your point is invalid and hypocritical because you do not acknowledge that fact. And Islam is monothestic, grouped with those two religions. It has nothing to do with greek mythology.

Huh? At least here you can draw satire about the Pope, Christianity etc as much as you like and if there are Christians who take offense, they will not go around and kill whoever did it, but possibly start a lawsuit, after which either the caricature in question has to be deleted (and it is always about single cases, not about satire in a whole) or not, depending on the decision of the court. (And usually there are only lawsuits if a certain living person is directly insulted - Jesus, God or whatever are fair game).

This is where your thinking is screwed up. Tell me, how about the christian extremist in Norway who killed tens of people?? Or the jews who are currently killing in the name of judiasm. Or, when the americans killed off the "impure" native americans for not converting, or the reconquista of 1492, where millions of my people were slaughtered. Or la revolution in algeria, where the french killed millions of algerians and forced them to become second rate citizens. Or in africa, where the borders of the modern day countries were drawn on a piece of paper like childs play, which then ensued the mass civil wars we see today. Look no further then rwanda for that. Or the racism against algerians and morrocans for being of "muslim" descent in France until very recently. Want me to keep going? I can keep listing atrocities done in the name of the cross, or european supremacy. Wasn't too long ago when the amazigh jews were being burned to a crisp in southern spain was it now??

Now, that attack MAY or MAYNOT have had any relevance to the drawing. Which leads me to believe you are eating what BBC and FOX news feeds you. How are you 100% certain that christians or jews don't have any extremism in their ranks. Because I have bad news for you if you are certain.

shhhhhhhhhhh............keep quiet

you only have permission to give a bad name to Islam only

Are you really justifying current terrorist actions by referring to events that happened at least 150 years ago and before... come on now.

In terms of Algeria... you don't want me to correct you there dude.  You know i've spent a lot of time there.  I have no desire to hurt you or anyone else's feelings.  I loved it there but there are lot of problems and most of them are now self-inflicted.

sportsczy wrote:Are you really justifying current terrorist actions by referring to events that happened at least 150 years ago and before... come on now.

In terms of Algeria... you don't want me to correct you there dude.  You know i've spent a lot of time there.  I have no desire to hurt you or anyone else's feelings.  I loved it there but there are lot of problems and most of them are now self-inflicted.

sorry sportsczy, you misunderstanding us

we want to counter the argument that keep been shown by western media as though Islam is the worst, the baddest religion on earth

& we are tired hear all of that

unluckily, neutral people will become suspicious with Islam because of that

I just wrote a long bloody post addressing my opinion, but my browser crashed. So here is the sum of my points.

First, terrorism is older than Islam, and there is more non religious terrorist attacks today than there are Islamic Terrorist attacks. Islam is only getting mixed up in this because it is the major cultural force in a region where there would be terrorists regardless.

Second, I acknowledge that the religious Muslim community are severely under-performing in combating these ideals. I believe this due to the politicization of Islam which I will get to in a minute.

Third, the west is complacent in the forming of these terrorist groups. Either through direct funding and support as was the case with the US and Al-Qaeda, or through silent approval as countries such as Saudi fund these groups. Looking at ISIS, we clearly see how western support (including France) along with funding from Saudi and Qatar for terrorist groups fighting Assad in Syria helped in their creation. As long as terrorism is being wielded as a political weapon by every bloody ass with a bone in the ME, we will see these groups go rouge against their previous masters and start killing everyone and everything (mostly Muslims btw).

Fourth and most importantly, I confess that Charlie Hebdo's drawing hurt my feelings. However, Charlie have every right to draw those pictures without expecting to die. Knowing that I am being judged by my religion as a violent stupid man, I put extra effort in breaking the stereotype. I realize that I become an ambassador of some sort. And this is what Muslims should do in answer to Charlie Hebdo; show themselves as good people. In the end, the greatest affront to Prophet Mohammed was not Charlie's cartoons, but the gunmen who killed innocent people in his name.

Finally, may everyone killed in this pointless massacre rest in peace.

I am Charlie

Yeah...  the issue that the Muslims have, as eloquently said by the highest ranking Imam in France on BFMTV a few days ago, is that there's no central authority that the faithful can look to for the final word in terms of how the scripture should be interpreted.

In his words...  Islam scriptures lack context and, without a unifying authority, everyone is left free to provide context to meet his personal agenda.

To conclude, he said that, at a minimum for France, he would love to create a French centralized Islamic authority that would offer proper context to the scriptures.  

He was really harsh and angry on extremism... which was nice to see.  He was yelling at them on TV

When any organization becomes so large, the only way to keep it functioning is a very good org chart and systems of checks and balances... that's the next step for the Muslim faith imo.  I hope it happens soon.

sportsczy wrote:Yeah...  the issue that the Muslims have, as eloquently said by the highest ranking Imam in France on BFMTV a few days ago, is that there's no central authority that the faithful can look to for the final word in terms of how the scripture should be interpreted.

In his words...  Islam scriptures lack context and, without a unifying authority, everyone is left free to provide context to meet his personal agenda.

To conclude, he said that, at a minimum for France, he would love to create a French centralized Islamic authority that would offer proper context to the scriptures.  

He was really harsh and angry on extremism... which was nice to see.  He was yelling at them on TV

When any organization becomes so large, the only way to keep it functioning is a very good org chart and systems of checks and balances... that's the next step for the Muslim faith imo.  I hope it happens soon.

You see that happening in Iran now, with disastrous results though. One aspect that served Islam well in the past was that lack of central authority which could corrupt the religion. There is even a saying that there is: "Mercy in difference", meaning that people could choose to follow different interpretations.

However, with this lack of authority comes the attempt of some to go in with self-serving contextualization, and of others to try and grab that authority with themselves. Look at Al-Azhar, which have always looked foolish due to their handling of Egyptian affairs.

Hence, major Islamic figures should actively condemn these actions, which is happening now because the victims are French. Such things have been happening for years in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan without much comment because of sectarian reasons, which complicates stuff when the sectarian boundaries expand into previously OK territory.

It is a bloody mess, created from centuries of turmoil. Like the World Wars where the product of centuries of events in Europe, we are seeing the result of centuries of corruption in the region.

Well the problem in Iran is that there's no separation between Religion and State... that's critical for anything to work. The imams who run things there are also radical Those few places in the middle east where the State, although influenced by Islam, is not same as the religion (UAE, Qatar, etc.)... things tend to work ok.

sportsczy wrote:Well the problem in Iran is that there's no separation between Religion and State... that's critical for anything to work. The imams who run things there are also radical Those few places in the middle east where the State, although influenced by Islam, is not same as the religion (UAE, Qatar, etc.)... things tend to work ok.

Which is why Rouhani's is going to be an important figure in Iranian history moving forward. He severely reduced the power of the clergy, and is in fact moving Iran forward in very important fronts.

As for Qatar and the UAE, I would mostly say their current position is due to their small-size and wealth. Even though they are relatively stable in the region, they also funded extremist groups and have a lot t answer for regarding the current ISIS debacle (especially Qatar).

By the way, for those who think that satire is only out to hurt Muslim feelings - the German satire magazin Titanic obvious thinks that "Je suis Charlie" is getting a bit too exaggerated and so even this if being made fun of:  
http://www.titanic-magazin.de/postkarten/karte/bitte-teilen-22767/
(Satire warning: Click at your own risk and better refrain from clicking if easily offended)

FennecFox7 wrote:I guarantee you if you chant "I hate jesus" in Texas, hell will rain down on you.

That's the crux of the matter. Because not only will hell rain down on you but you will be vilified rather than made into the hero Charlie Hebdo has been. There's no argument that people should be allowed to make fun of whatever they want, I absolutely agree with you Dante on that point. But what we are trying to say is that nevertheless we have to get rid of the double standards with things like this.

Why did Charlie Hebdo fire someone for 'anti semitic cartoons' but still depict the black foreign minister of France as a monkey?

You should be able to speak ill of anything, but you should be seen as the as the offensive and disgusting person you are when you do.

FennecFox7 wrote:

Dante wrote:Thankfully we have you FennecFox7 and guest07 to enlighten us. Tell me more about how Islam's god is the one true god and how more legit and real than any god of the ancient pantheon he is

As for you guest07 , your perception of someone who wants to live freely without restrictions or fear , or opression of any kind , is 'who cares'?

...

The rest you said are total jibberish , i don't even bother . But just for your information , if i want to leave my country for whatever reason , it will be for a country that i won't have to fear for what i say btw , so as you can imagine , experiencing the Middle Ages anywhere in the Middle East will never be in my list in the first place

You need a history lesson. In the middle ages, Muslim spain, or al-andalus, was the most tolerant empire in the world. Even the mongol empire made europe look like a bunch of backwards fools. In fact, Saladin in the 13th century went into Jerusalem after winning it in battle and did not kill anyone when he claimed the city. People of ANY religion were free to stay there. Saladin took care of Richard the lionhearted, a christian trying to destroy the middle east.

In the middle ages, the middle east and north africa WAS comparable to the west. Europe was the backwards, ugly part of the world.

And you still didn't answer my question, because you know I'm right. I don't give a shit about religion. I'm a deist/agnostic, I have my own beliefs. But I will correct people who don't know a thing about it and watch FOX news all the time.

Islamophobia is an excuse to attack people of north african, middle eastern, or kurdish origin. Period.

More likely , it seems you need a comprehension lesson . I don't care to experience anything remotely close to that today anywhere in the middle East , it's still better here where i live and in Europe . Got it now? Yes Muslims in the Middle Ages were tolerable with other religions or specificaly Christians , as long as they got their taxes and all.. fine. Should i want to live in almost any place in Middle East today? Fk no and no matter how tolerable some had been , it was still friggin middle ages , thanks but not thanks.

And pls go with what i need , i've been reading history before you could even write your name down . My point was , living in most places in Europe or pretty much in most places in the western world remains the only choice for human beings who enjoy their freedom and don't want to fear for their lives for what they say or what they believe , who reject opression . I won't solve Middle East problems , if they want theocracy there they can have it , however they keep to their own and the rest to theirs. What other people do in their own countries is their own business , not Islam's , not Muslims , anyone's .

As for Islamophobia , i condemn it because i do understand ordinary Muslims only differ so much from your next Christian.. they are certainly not worse people because they believe in Islam . Personally speaking , i am not Islamophobic , i've been defending Muslims where i live and i want them to have equal rights with their christian cousins where i live , and i am an atheist. I want them to practise their religion freely and in peace and i have no relation or specific affection about pretty much anything Islam , or Muslim .

Having said that . Just because i am not Islamophobic doesn't mean i should be willing to grand them more than they need , or not laugh at them when i feel like it , or understanding this simple observation that i should stay the fk away from Middle East as it is today. Calling it how it is , i want freedom for everyone and that includes Muslims too , however it comes with a price .

Lord Spencer wrote:I just wrote a long bloody post addressing my opinion, but my browser crashed. So here is the sum of my points.

First, terrorism is older than Islam, and there is more non religious terrorist attacks today than there are Islamic Terrorist attacks. Islam is only getting mixed up in this because it is the major cultural force in a region where there would be terrorists regardless.

Second, I acknowledge that the religious Muslim community are severely under-performing in combating these ideals. I believe this due to the politicization of Islam which I will get to in a minute.

Third, the west is complacent in the forming of these terrorist groups. Either through direct funding and support as was the case with the US and Al-Qaeda, or through silent approval as countries such as Saudi fund these groups. Looking at ISIS, we clearly see how western support (including France) along with funding from Saudi and Qatar for terrorist groups fighting Assad in Syria helped in their creation. As long as terrorism is being wielded as a political weapon by every bloody ass with a bone in the ME, we will see these groups go rouge against their previous masters and start killing everyone and everything (mostly Muslims btw).

Fourth and most importantly, I confess that Charlie Hebdo's drawing hurt my feelings. However, Charlie have every right to draw those pictures without expecting to die. Knowing that I am being judged by my religion as a violent stupid man, I put extra effort in breaking the stereotype. I realize that I become an ambassador of some sort. And this is what Muslims should do in answer to Charlie Hebdo; show themselves as good people. In the end, the greatest affront to Prophet Mohammed was not Charlie's cartoons, but the gunmen who killed innocent people in his name.

Finally, may everyone killed in this pointless massacre rest in peace.

I am Charlie

Like seriously. Bless you , man . Thank you for that post.

I was wondering in the past few days , will nobody say it ? Instead of getting rejective towards freedom whom most enjoy in their lives and saying mostly how offended they felt and how we shouldn't freely do this or that , will nobody say , i am decent enough let them draw what they want, i am better than that ? THATS how you show where you come from people , that's how you prove how your religion makes you better people.

thousand reps for this too

In the end, the greatest affront to Prophet Mohammed was not Charlie's cartoons, but the gunmen who killed innocent people in his name.

Wish more people talked about this simple truth , before they start making all sorts of unnecessary excuses , accusations or waving the banner of righteousness . It may not be pretty when it happens and someone mocks/laughs/insults anything you hold dear , but wanting others to live less free just because you don't want some things to be heard , is not a trait of a man with morals. At trait of a man with morals , of a trully good man , is showing dignity . What satire does and is isn't meant for hurting just "your" feelings , satire is there for everything . We can't just witness deaths because of some cartoons and say the issue is freedom of speech , or satire .  

I've seen Muslims from all around the world condemn the terrorists and really it wasn't in their name , no sane man even thinks like that , but honestly , it would be a lot better if most said what you said in the quote . That sends a way more powerfull , true message , than simply trying to distance yourself . People who are Islamophobic won't change their minds , it's wasting your time with them. Making them see beyond doubt what was really worse , what was really a blasphemy , that's what counts and even the biggest Islamophobic alive will undersand the differnce , it would sort even their mind.

ACMRox wrote:

FennecFox7 wrote:I guarantee you if you chant "I hate jesus" in Texas, hell will rain down on you.

That's the crux of the matter. Because not only will hell rain down on you but you will be vilified rather than made into the hero Charlie Hebdo has been. There's no argument that people should be allowed to make fun of whatever they want, I absolutely agree with you Dante on that point. But what we are trying to say is that nevertheless we have to get rid of the double standards with things like this.

Why did Charlie Hebdo fire someone for 'anti semitic cartoons' but still depict the black foreign minister of France as a monkey?

You should be able to speak ill of anything, but you should be seen as the as the offensive and disgusting person you are when you do.

who calls them heroes? they were victims , i don't see anything heroic at what they have been doing. Besides that , Christians and Christianity and Christ don't have it any better anywhere in Europe or America , in fact they have it even worse than Islam , simply because it's more wide spread and common , it affects their lives more .

You just don't see their radical version of their religion killing people. They will do other bs , or even legit reaction at times , but that's about it. In Greece they've shut down theatres which where mocking Christ , or in the past , didn't allow a movie to play in cinemas because it was against Christian ethics and such things.. a Martin Scorcese movie That's still fkn ridiculous for any sane person tbh , but prefferable to deaths.

I get the double standards you say , but it's not black and white really , if that's what it seems . There's Islamophobia around , that i won't deny , but that's mostly fear for the foreign , which is written in everyone's DNA . We still fight this and i am pretty sure the same exists in middle east too , i don't think they welcome the foreign there too

Yeah , other than that , i don't think there's double standards , at least not commonly accepted double standards. And when they do , surely we're not to be held accountable for everyone ? As far as i know , there's 3 to 1 satire and critique and anything against Christianity in the West , than Islam tbh.

The issue here is , the fanatics did what they did and now both Islamophobia and Islam critique get to an entire new level . As for the Jews , lol who cares about the Jews . If the Jews get spared is mostly down to the fact they aren't near as many , or radical , as Christians and Muslims have proven to be. That's my opinion , as far as social double standards go.

And there's still anti-semitism to be found around the west anyway , especially where deeply Christian societies live , they are more against the Jews than they are against Muslims really . Point is , as societies , we are responsible to sort all this out . I am just glad you agree at least , with the fact that we should say what we want and when we must , we should be held accountable for what we say.

It's not like anyone here who advocates about liberal views and freedom of speech ever said anything else. Just because people have the right to satirize your religion , doesn't mean they aren't morons , or what have you. It doesn't mean they just want to hate either. Whatever they are , anyone can have their opinion after they are free to express theirs without fears.

And if they are to be ashamed or ridiculed or condemned for their satire or their words , let it be , nobody ever claims they shouldn't . Free speech isn't just a free pass to speak or mock religion , is also a free pass for religion to speak back too. It doesn't give anyone pardons or the high ground.

Lord Spencer wrote:I just wrote a long bloody post addressing my opinion, but my browser crashed. So here is the sum of my points.

First, terrorism is older than Islam, and there is more non religious terrorist attacks today than there are Islamic Terrorist attacks. Islam is only getting mixed up in this because it is the major cultural force in a region where there would be terrorists regardless.

Second, I acknowledge that the religious Muslim community are severely under-performing in combating these ideals. I believe this due to the politicization of Islam which I will get to in a minute.

Third, the west is complacent in the forming of these terrorist groups. Either through direct funding and support as was the case with the US and Al-Qaeda, or through silent approval as countries such as Saudi fund these groups. Looking at ISIS, we clearly see how western support (including France) along with funding from Saudi and Qatar for terrorist groups fighting Assad in Syria helped in their creation. As long as terrorism is being wielded as a political weapon by every bloody ass with a bone in the ME, we will see these groups go rouge against their previous masters and start killing everyone and everything (mostly Muslims btw).

Fourth and most importantly, I confess that Charlie Hebdo's drawing hurt my feelings. However, Charlie have every right to draw those pictures without expecting to die. Knowing that I am being judged by my religion as a violent stupid man, I put extra effort in breaking the stereotype. I realize that I become an ambassador of some sort. And this is what Muslims should do in answer to Charlie Hebdo; show themselves as good people. In the end, the greatest affront to Prophet Mohammed was not Charlie's cartoons, but the gunmen who killed innocent people in his name.

Finally, may everyone killed in this pointless massacre rest in peace.

I am Charlie

Bless you right in the face. That's an incredibly enlightened post. All in all prime merchandise post-wise.

Much love to you.


Especially one point deserves repetition: the part about terrorism being political.
I know I give Islam some stick in this context, but that is because I give all religions stick, and Islam informed the context of these recent terror attacks, and basically made the choice of the target semi-obvious.

But people like that become terrorists for political and socio-economic reasons. And there is such a thing as Islamic terrorism because Islam is the cultural unifier between lots of different insular communities and countries, all of which have suffered under Western meddling in the past century.
So obviously their terrorists will be influenced by Islam.

If there were a bunch of tribal buddhists sitting on that much mutually threatening tribes, oil wells, and bordering Israel and Turkey, I'm pretty sure we'd all be suspiciously eyeing bald fat men now.

Lord Spencer wrote:

sportsczy wrote:Well the problem in Iran is that there's no separation between Religion and State... that's critical for anything to work.  The imams who run things there are also radical  Those few places in the middle east where the State, although influenced by Islam, is not same as the religion (UAE, Qatar, etc.)... things tend to work ok.

Which is why Rouhani's is going to be an important figure in Iranian history moving forward. He severely reduced the power of the clergy, and is in fact moving Iran forward in very important fronts.

As for Qatar and the UAE, I would mostly say their current position is due to their small-size and wealth. Even though they are relatively stable in the region, they also funded extremist groups and have a lot t answer for regarding the current ISIS debacle (especially Qatar).

Rouhani can't do a thing unless Khamenei allows him to... and the only reason Rouhani is in power and given some rope to work with is that Iran was in financial ruin.  They needed to trick the US into thinking that they were making progress so that the sanctions were eased:  mission accomplished with our donkey president who is Obama.  As soon as they have money in the bank again, Rouhani will be reigned back in and all will go back to what it was.

sportsczy wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

sportsczy wrote:Well the problem in Iran is that there's no separation between Religion and State... that's critical for anything to work.  The imams who run things there are also radical  Those few places in the middle east where the State, although influenced by Islam, is not same as the religion (UAE, Qatar, etc.)... things tend to work ok.

Which is why Rouhani's is going to be an important figure in Iranian history moving forward. He severely reduced the power of the clergy, and is in fact moving Iran forward in very important fronts.

As for Qatar and the UAE, I would mostly say their current position is due to their small-size and wealth. Even though they are relatively stable in the region, they also funded extremist groups and have a lot t answer for regarding the current ISIS debacle (especially Qatar).

Rouhani can't do a thing unless Khamenei allows him to... and the only reason Rouhani is in power and given some rope to work with is that Iran was in financial ruin.  They needed to trick the US into thinking that they were making progress so that the sanctions were eased:  mission accomplished with our donkey president who is Obama.  As soon as they have money in the bank again, Rouhani will be reigned back in and all will go back to what it was.

Khamnei lost a lot of power with the financial ruins Najad did in his name. Money is power, and the Iranian people have experience in toppling regimes. Not to mention the fact that Khamnei is old now.

Any observer of Iranian politics would see the change in their political structure. I wouldn't bet against Rouhani if he manages to break ground with the west.

You and i both know that as long as the Basij (bastards of all bastards) and the Revolutionary Guards have so much power and can squash anything... Iran isn't going to improve much.

It's honestly a shame that the student revolution was hijacked by these people.

Just wanted to thank to all the good contributors to this thread namely Dante, Sports, LS, and others. Definitely one of the most informative and interesting and read-able threads in history of GL.

Well done lads ! (and girls)

Alarming words by Obama today.  Congress is passing a bill to re-introduce and even toughen sanctions on Iran.  Obama said:

"I will veto this bill if it is presented me.  I am asking for patience in the next several months to see if we can solve a big problem without resorting potentially to war."

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/16/politics/cameron-obama-press-conference/index.html

Things are REALLY getting extreme now.  It seems that either the West gets the resolutions it seeks or it will take heavy military action to resolve the situations.  No more waiting around.

I hope things work out.  A war would be disastrous for a lot of reasons... but i think the West are set to not all any extremists to have the ability to create a nuclear weapon.  The past year and recent events have shown that the extremist have the means to perhaps use such a weapon.

Damn.