Paris Shooting

[Sojourn]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ffice-in-paris

[سيف الله]

Salaam

The hysteria is reaching fever pitch. Heres an alternative response you wont be hearing anytime soon in the mainstream media.

Dr Abdul Wahid On The Recent Events In Paris


In the aftermath of the events in Paris, with perpetrators still on the run, the West’s press and politicians have set a narrative across the world – that the journalists at Charlie Hebdo were killed as part of a war on free speech and as such they died as martyrs.

We could go around in circles with arguments and counter arguments. ‘Had there been no provocation there would have been no backlash’ versus ‘violence is never justified when insulted’.

One thing is for sure, in my view. Had any government in the Muslim world taken a robust stand on the on-going insults to the Prophet – peace be upon him – threatening diplomatic action or to cut trade relations over the insulting depictions – I do not believe individuals would feel the frustration to retaliate. This is one of the reasons why calls for the restoration of a legitimate Islamic polity in the Muslim world continue to resonate so strongly amongst Muslims globally – to return stability and independence to the region.

But those who blame Islam for these killings say that like all religions it needs critiquing.

In that case, let me offer a critique of the modern secular ‘religion’ of liberalism – but with less crudeness and fewer insults than normally accompanies many ‘critiques’ of Islam.

France’s claim that free expression is a ‘fundamental principle’ of the Republic is a myth. For in France free expression is for some but not for others. Women are fined for wearing niqab – or banned from education for wearing hijab. Even at Charlie Hebdo, upheld as a bastion of free speech, this ‘fundamental principle’ was set aside to appease domestic political sensitivities when they sacked their own cartoonist Maurice Sinet for refusing to apologise for his biting item about Nicholas Sarkozy’s son, which appeared to denigrate him for marrying Jewish heiresses for money.

Similarly, when the French Prime Minister previously stated that the cartoons published by the magazine in 2011 were “expressed within the confines of the law and under the control of the courts”, he ought to have been reminded that the French senate passed a bill earlier that year outlawing denial of any genocide recognised by French law – restricting expression under the law and through the courts for political reasons.

”Free speech” is never absolutely “free”. No society has ever said there is an absolute right to say what you want. Laws outlawing speech are all around us. The British government is in the process of introducing legislation that will criminalise everyone from toddlers to parents for saying things that aren’t “British”. It has already criminalised people for insulting British troops. Germany criminalises holocaust denial, despite it remaining legal elsewhere. There are many examples across Europe – and usually applied selectively.

Every society has restricted speech according to their belief and value system. In secular Western society religion is largely unvalued so blasphemy is permitted. Whereas in many other parts of the world, including the Islamic world, religion is a central value and so blasphemy becomes a redline issue, including insulting any of the Prophets of God, starting from the Prophet Adam, to Prophets Moses and Jesus to the Prophet Mohammad (salallahu alaihi wasallam – and Peace be on all of them).

The existence of redlines in different societies should not imply the closure of debate. Certainly not in the case of Islam, which has a centuries-old Islamic tradition to engage in debate, tolerate criticism and hear the critiques of others. But criticism and debate is different to deliberately targeting the insult to others.

The cost to societal harmony from the ‘freedom to insult’ is rarely discussed. This freedom to mock and deride, born out of Europe’s particular dilemma of Church authority, opened the door to the growing disrespect and anti-social behaviour in society – where rudeness is celebrated as a sign of assertiveness, courtesy undervalued as weakness, and all too many people do not respect each other or the law.

Where such “freedoms” were once used to account those in power and prevent the excesses of the state, they are now directed at a community that holds no such status. The freedom to insult the sacred symbols of Islam has become a tool to bully and persecute a minority community – with a rise in the far right and anti-Muslim sentiment.

In this context an ultimatum has been served to Muslims – that it is not enough to say that the capital punishment for insulting the Prophet of Islam should be done after due judicial process by an Islamic authority – and not by ‘lone rangers’. That it is not enough to say that Muslim in a non-Muslim country under a covenant should not be a vigilante, killing people in broad daylight, some of whom had nothing to do with insulting the Prophet.

Rather, what is expected of a Muslim in Europe today is that you bow down before the god of free speech until you accept that every Prophet can be insulted – and you learn to like it or laugh it off!

That is an unacceptable expectation by those who attack Islam. Muslims living in the West have only one option when faced with insults against their beloved Prophet – and that is to speak out. Those who work to remove even that option will fail. They will find we continue to speak out loudly– despite the mockery and hatred.

Those who say we must all be allowed to insult each other freely should realise the resulting society is one where people start to hate each other, even when they tolerate each other. By contrast a society that considers deliberate insult and unnecessary provocation of others something to be avoided, is one where people will live harmoniously despite their varied differences.

The current pattern of state policies, community alienation, provocation and retaliation only fuels fear, intimidation and mistrust – for Muslim and non-Muslim alike. What is needed is more mature debate and intellectual discussion rather than insults, lies and false narratives. And despite the ultimatums put to us, Muslim remain ready for this.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/dr-abdul-wahid-on-the-recent-events-in-paris

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you all,

I think the biggest question is whether these attackers were justified in their actions according to an Islamic point of view. I can sympathize with grievances Muslims in France have over not being able to wear the niqaab or having their Prophet insulted and depicted in ways they find inappropriate, but the question is does this justify killing? Dr Walid's article doesn't really address this, although his tone makes one think that perhaps he does find it justifiable.

With all this done, unfortunately the imagine of "Islam" will only further tarnish. Perceptions of Islam as promoting violence will only grow. The prohibitions against Muslim articles of clothing that express Islamic identity will probably only be seen as more justified now. So even if some Muslims find these attacks as justifiable, as horrible and unfortunate as that would be, in the end Islam and the global Muslims community will only suffer more.


Pax et bonum

[LearnIslam]

I do agree that some cartoons on Muhammed were in not so good taste. But I wonder what Islam says about making an objection.

I also want to know - if a person like Anjem Chaudhary, clearly enjoying the benefits of life in Britain and who condoned the attacks, uses his freedom of expression to suffocate people in Britain, then would a non-Muslim be wrong in expecting his freedom of expression against Muslim beliefs in a Muslim nation?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[ali399]

true but should have more in detailed, any how it good

[Hulk]

I do agree that some cartoons on Muhammed were in not so good taste. But I wonder what Islam says about making an objection.

I also want to know - if a person like Anjem Chaudhary, clearly enjoying the benefits of life in Britain and who condoned the attacks, uses his freedom of expression to suffocate people in Britain, then would a non-Muslim be wrong in expecting his freedom of expression against Muslim beliefs in a Muslim nation?

There is nothing in Islam that condones murder, nor vigilantism.

As for your next question, it doesn't really make sense for someone to expect a muslim majority country to treat him in a certain way because of how a muslim behaves in another country. One would have to abide by the laws of the place that he is in.

[h-n]

Importance here is of people remembering God. Where he punishes people and takes them into the next world to the fires of Hell. God didn't say that we were to kill everyone who is against Islam, we only fight against those who fight against us. This is where God himself kills the unbelievers ie at the time of Prophet Lut peace be upon him.

There are important points to consider as per Islamic point of view, in regards to what is being said;-

1. There are those that are saying that the media makes fun out of other religions, but that doesn't justify making fun out of others, does that mean that if you dirty your shirt, its OK for someone else's shirt to be dirty too???

2. Of course all the Muslims find it offensive of the cartoons, and those that even depict the Prophet with the likes of dogs-may Allah turn them into dogs in the next world! -Allah himself turned the evil doers to apes. So here the importance of remembering the next world, of what the person is adding to his record and building up for himself on the Day of Judgement.

3. Anyone making fun out of God, the Prophets will be made to answer them in the next world. It is the fact that people disrespect and trivialise the sins of people. For example, anyone would find it offensive and deeply hurtful if they were to make a cartoon of the Archangel Gabriel- every single angel would be ready to strike anyone for saying anything bad, making malicious cartoons about him. It is funny that they are willing to use loyalty to suit there needs ie films, for example in the Lord of the Rings trilogy they have the elves, if anyone was to be rude to the leader, all the elves would be upset about it.

4. Are they trying to teach us not to take it as an offence??? For that will never happen. The editor who died in the fire, what was he standing up for?? That people shouldn't care about religion?? He himself was having a relationship outside of marriage-his partner has been speaking to the press. So how is that people who aren't even living respectfully claim to be in any position to attack religion?? Anyone who is supporting those that make cartoons of the Prophets, then again we remember the next world, then stand with them on the Day of Judgement. If they are so sure, then tell people that they were God fearing people and that they believe that they are going to Heaven.

5. It is as above important to remember that God has allowed people to choose, and its up to them to reject the message, if they wish to make a mockery of it-and what they use is the material that they have gained from the Muslims-if we were embarrassed about it then do they think we would have allowed anyone to view them in the first place???

6. Another thing is that newspapers etc report on things that are of interest to the people, obviously people are not interested in reading up on the life of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, so why make cartoons of him?? When Muslims are a minority?? The majority are law abiding? Here they are not interested in getting along with people. They should get to the point, again as above, are they saying that the Muslims should accept it, when God, the angels find it unacceptable??

7. Of course anyone who wishes to write against Islam etc, have been jumping on the bandwagon for financial incentives, well it serves them right and the people who support them, to waste their time and money, its like some Muslims who left Islam to move abroad-for financial reasons, whatever people are going to say, is not going to get rid of Islam.

8. For the people that are saying it would be worse for the Muslims, again we remember Allah, where its entirely up to him, how long he tests people, and the fact that they accept homosexuality etc, what makes them think its the Muslims with the problems??

9. For the people who quote what the western world has ie technology, well the people of Thamud were just as arrogant. Carving homes out of mountains. The west tells people that we should just agree with them because of what they say they offer-it is they that should respect God of the Worlds, after all the food that he has provided them with etc. They cannot guarantee that they will be here tomorrow. OF course if they read on religion, they should know people don't forsake their religion for money etc. If that was the case, then we would have listened to Satan.

10. The way that they talk is that they will be here for a very long time. If the Prophet Jesus peace be upon him was in France-it wouldn't be acceptable to tell him that you need to be secular, that we don't like your Mother wearing a headscarf. That you need to listen to our rules, instead of listening to the Lord of the Worlds. Here, they reject the laws of God, (even quoting killing-why did France join the war with the USA???), but they wish for people to "respect" them, when they are promoting lewdness.

11. They wish to claim that they are fighting for freedom-they are living the way they wish to live, how has a Muslim stopped them from doing so?? No Muslim cares if they don't accept Islam, they try and claim that we are after them, and use the stories of the past. Are not even some males looking to marry someone from abroad?? They have nothing to worry about, no Muslim would wish to get married to a tattooed, drunkard female. They claim to be siding with what is right, what is right is what is from God, with what has been given to the Prophets, ie Ibrahim and Moses peace be upon them etc.

As Muslims go, whenever they talk it is a reminder of the Day of Judgement and what they will be facing. They need to be concerned with protecting themselves from the fires of Hell, any people who claim to support people who reject religion-will be disowning them on the Day of Judgement. Anyone who is arrogant and wishing to say they are with people who go against the Prophets Moses, Ibrahim, Noah peace be upon them etc-then we as Muslims will remember and we will all view the conditions of these people on the Day of Judgement. No need for arguments etc, just wait for the Day of Judgement.

Remember Allah and the Day of Judgement.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The Paris shootings are another sad example of behaviour that harms non-Muslims and Muslims alike. I like to check in to this forum at times like this to see how the issue is being discussed.

As usual, there's lots of wrong-headed bleating that ignores the central issue:

Anyone who thinks that killing is preferable to satire urgently needs to reassess their moral priorities.

This writer was on the verge of getting the point:

Rather, what is expected of a Muslim in Europe today is that you bow down before the god of free speech until you accept that every Prophet can be insulted – and you learn to like it or laugh it off!

Yes - exactly. If you can't put up with your religion being mocked, then don't live in a secular country.

I'm not saying I believe religion should always be mocked, but many people in secular countries do. They believe religion as a whole is worthy of nothing other than contempt and ridicule. That is simply a fact, and if you can't tolerate that, and perhaps even "laugh it off", then live somewhere else.

In the nearly ten years I've been a member of this forum, I've learned a lot about Islam. I've met some interesting people, and I've almost learned to see things from a Muslim point of view - certainly more than most of my friends can.

One thing that seems very clear to me is that Islam urgently needs a central living authority. Muslims call for a Caliphate, and I think they're right. Not covering the entire world - that will never happen - but substantial enough to command the respect of Muslims worldwide.

Until this living authority exists, then terrorists can carry on giving Islam a bad name by listening to the scholars who support them, and ignoring the scholars who condemn them. Islam is a religion that is in a huge mess at the moment, and the sooner it is re-organised (or even Reformed - how about that for an idea?) the better it will be for planet Earth as a whole.

Peace

[h-n]

Greetings,

The Paris shootings are another sad example of behaviour that harms non-Muslims and Muslims alike. I like to check in to this forum at times like this to see how the issue is being discussed.

As usual, there's lots of wrong-headed bleating that ignores the central issue:

Anyone who thinks that killing is preferable to satire urgently needs to reassess their moral priorities.

This writer was on the verge of getting the point:



Yes - exactly. If you can't put up with your religion being mocked, then don't live in a secular country.

I'm not saying I believe religion should always be mocked, but many people in secular countries do. They believe religion as a whole is worthy of nothing other than contempt and ridicule. That is simply a fact, and if you can't tolerate that, and perhaps even "laugh it off", then live somewhere else.

In the nearly ten years I've been a member of this forum, I've learned a lot about Islam. I've met some interesting people, and I've almost learned to see things from a Muslim point of view - certainly more than most of my friends can.

One thing that seems very clear to me is that Islam urgently needs a central living authority. Muslims call for a Caliphate, and I think they're right. Not covering the entire world - that will never happen - but substantial enough to command the respect of Muslims worldwide.

Until this living authority exists, then terrorists can carry on giving Islam a bad name by listening to the scholars who support them, and ignoring the scholars who condemn them. Islam is a religion that is in a huge mess at the moment, and the sooner it is re-organised (or even Reformed - how about that for an idea?) the better it will be for planet Earth as a whole.

Peace

What a lot of tripe!!!

First of all you don't listen to the God of the Worlds, so you reject that, he who owns this world and everything in it, but then you expect people to listen to people's made up whatever they want.

This world belongs to God Almighty-so we don't have an issue of where we live and comply with our religious beliefs.

So if you don't like it-your the one who should build your own world and get off this one!!!!

Also why don't you get to the point??? As none of the french people who are supporting the cartoonists have done so. Frankly they have lost the plot. When do you see the Muslims making cartoons of hindu idols etc???


Who would buy these papers? The non-Muslims, so why bother making cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him?? This is done only with the knowledge that the Muslims do not like it, which it could have been anything, if we didn't like anyone drawing a tree etc.

So what are you trying to get from the target audience of these paper buyers?? They don't like Islam, well a lot of people don't, but what kind of response do they think they should get??? They are nothing to do with fighting for what is "right", they are not oppressed, fighting persecution etc.

Just because someone is offended with something, doesn't mean that you draw it on purpose knowing full well that its offensive.

There is only one God, Allah, not a "God of free speech", and funny that you talk of secular, but then willing to use the word God. You are able to say what you want, but that doesn't mean that you can control how other people react, not all Muslims but there are some people who will act violently, if you say awful things about their Mother etc.

It is the fact that the cartoonists have done nothing for France, its not like they brought something of benefit, they haven't done something worthy of anything in this world. There are people who do write well, ie Agatha Christie etc.

These fools have purposely drawn something on purpose to offend Muslims, and even the editor asked for a bodyguard-maybe, if he wanted to do something, he shouldn't be asking others to protect him.

I as a Muslim have zero sympathy for him (not saying they should have been killed), just like a person being a criminal and dies in the process of robbing a house. We could have a field day and make plenty of cartoons of secularism, what of;- homosexuality, people not knowing who their father is etc, but we DON'T, and neither do we find it funny. So actually we have respected you more, then you have respected each other as we are not telling females to be single parents, it a hard situation to be in etc.

We follow Prophets Jesus, Ibrahim, Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Muhammad peace be upon them etc. We certainly aren't going to change religion to make it acceptable to the sinful people-how stupid is that!! How is that any different to just doing what Satan wishes us to do???

Also its good that we don't have a central leader, as all your asking is for a leader for the Muslims to listen to, and be corrupted by the west. The leader of the Muslims will be coming during the Major signs of the Day of Judgement, and they are two, the first is the Mahdi and the second is Prophet Jesus peace be upon him-and as you can see, certainly with the latter, they aren't going to tell us to change our religion so we accept evil.

[ardianto]

Assalamualaikum, greeting.

Regarding to Paris Shooting case, a terrorism observer in Indonesia says it's because press in the Europe are 'too wild'. To be honest, as Indonesian, I think he's right. Press in Indonesia have journalistic ethical code that do not adheres to "free speech", but adheres to "responsible freedom". Also, press in Indonesia are not allowed to offend any ethnic, any religion, any race, any social class. How if a media offend or insult an ethnic, religion, race, social class?. People can sue this media to the court.

It sound like curb the freedom of press. But this law was made to prevent friction among people from different ethnic, religion, race and social class. Also to prevent vigilante action from people who offended by a news.

Okay, how about journalistic ethical code in France?.

[ardianto]

I do agree that some cartoons on Muhammed were in not so good taste. But I wonder what Islam says about making an objection.

I also want to know - if a person like Anjem Chaudhary, clearly enjoying the benefits of life in Britain and who condoned the attacks, uses his freedom of expression to suffocate people in Britain, then would a non-Muslim be wrong in expecting his freedom of expression against Muslim beliefs in a Muslim nation?

There are few non-Muslims in Indonesia who made statements that offend Muslims. But Indonesian medias do not 'blow up' their statements. Different than what British medias do to Anjem Choudary which they treat him like a celebrity. Like in this Paris shootings case which British medias quickly run to Anjem, ask his comment, then blow it up like he represent Muslims in general.

Indeed, Anjem misuse the freedom of expression. But unfortunately British medias support it. My advice to British medias, stop asking statement from Anjem Choudary.

[LearnIslam]

Like in this Paris shootings case which British medias quickly run to Anjem, ask his comment, then blow it up like he represent Muslims in general.

Indeed, Anjem misuse the freedom of expression. But unfortunately British medias support it. My advice to British medias, stop asking statement from Anjem Choudary.

Some places take statements from someone like Anjem. But others took it from Muslims who rectified the opinion. This is what I notice :

- Western countries don't value religion closely. Muslims do. And its good in my opinion to value faith.
- They use means to continuously provoke Muslims.
- The terror network connected to Muslim majority countries then shows its ugly head out.
- People like Anjem are interviewed and they approve it.

Do I make sense when I say that many of the influential Islamic leaders are intolerant of dialogue or discussion with non-Muslims? That is the reason Islam has this image in the eyes of many. I am not a Muslim, but I have Muslim friends.

And there are times I feel Muslims demand thing overriding the state/country law in non-Muslim countries, while are strict on imposing Shariah or whatever law they want in countries they form the majority. Is there an explanation for this in particular? (1)

Quran says (if I am not mistaken), "There is no compulsion in religion". What does Quran or Hadith say about the means of making an objection? (2)

[czgibson]

Greetings,

What a lot of tripe!!!

First of all you don't listen to the God of the Worlds, so you reject that, he who owns this world and everything in it, but then you expect people to listen to people's made up whatever they want.

This world belongs to God Almighty-so we don't have an issue of where we live and comply with our religious beliefs.

So if you don't like it-your the one who should build your own world and get off this one!!!!

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm an atheist. I don't believe God exists. According to me, God was created by humans in order to scare people like you into behaving well and believing things that are untrue.

In consequence, I won't be leaving this planet any time soon based on what are, from my point of view, your untrue beliefs.

You don't have to agree with me, and you are welcome to insult my beliefs if you want. I will not threaten you with violence in return.

Also why don't you get to the point???

I thought I made the central point of my post pretty clear. I even put it in bold. In case you missed it, here it is again:

Anyone who thinks that killing is preferable to satire urgently needs to reassess their moral priorities.

When do you see the Muslims making cartoons of hindu idols etc???

To be honest, I've never seen any offensive cartoons made by Muslims against Hindus. I've seen plenty targeted at Jews though. I don't want to provide a link here, but a simple Google Image search will show you that hundreds of them do exist.

There is only one God, Allah, not a "God of free speech", and funny that you talk of secular, but then willing to use the word God.

I didn't use the word "God" once in my previous post. You must have imagined it.

It is the fact that the cartoonists have done nothing for France, its not like they brought something of benefit, they haven't done something worthy of anything in this world.

They have stood up for freedom of speech in the face of repeated threats of violence from people who claim to share your religion. Other newspapers have been too afraid to do the same, because they realise (as has been demonstrated yet again) that these threats of violence are very real.

I hope every news organisation in the West simultaneously republishes the same cartoons, to show that we are united in our support for freedom of speech and to show that we are fed up with this religious bullying. Look at Facebook - thousands of individuals are doing this already.

I as a Muslim have zero sympathy for him (not saying they should have been killed), just like a person being a criminal and dies in the process of robbing a house.

You are clearly on the side of the killers. Your entire post is one long attempt to justify their actions. Are you even slightly ashamed?

We could have a field day and make plenty of cartoons of secularism, what of;- homosexuality, people not knowing who their father is etc, but we DON'T, and neither do we find it funny.

You are welcome to develop a sense of humour any time you like.

We follow Prophets Jesus, Ibrahim, Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Muhammad peace be upon them etc. We certainly aren't going to change religion to make it acceptable to the sinful people-how stupid is that!! How is that any different to just doing what Satan wishes us to do???

You are perfectly welcome to your religion, and I wish you the very best of luck with it. I mean that sincerely - I genuinely hope it brings you fulfilment and happiness.

Just stop expecting the rest of us to obey its rules.

Peace

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

I hope every news organisation in the West simultaneously republishes the same cartoons, to show that we are united in our support for freedom of speech and to show that we are fed up with this religious bullying. Look at Facebook - thousands of individuals are doing this already.

I am a Christian, and I found those cartoons highly offensive. Clearly there are millions of Muslims who have also found those cartoons offensive, but they have not killed anyone. Do you seriously want to offend all those millions of Muslims yet again, because of what four individuals have done?

You talk about religious bullying, but if every paper published those cartoons again, this might be considered to be bullying by the secular community. Killing is wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right. As I understand, four gunmen/women have died, who else needs to be punished for their actions.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

[h-n]

Greetings,

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm an atheist. I don't believe God exists. According to me, God was created by humans in order to scare people like you into behaving well and believing things that are untrue.

In consequence, I won't be leaving this planet any time soon based on what are, from my point of view, your untrue beliefs.

You don't have to agree with me, and you are welcome to insult my beliefs if you want. I will not threaten you with violence in return.

I thought I made the central point of my post pretty clear. I even put it in bold. In case you missed it, here it is again:

Anyone who thinks that killing is preferable to satire urgently needs to reassess their moral priorities.

To be honest, I've never seen any offensive cartoons made by Muslims against Hindus. I've seen plenty targeted at Jews though. I don't want to provide a link here, but a simple Google Image search will show you that hundreds of them do exist.

I didn't use the word "God" once in my previous post. You must have imagined it.


They have stood up for freedom of speech in the face of repeated threats of violence from people who claim to share your religion. Other newspapers have been too afraid to do the same, because they realise (as has been demonstrated yet again) that these threats of violence are very real.

I hope every news organisation in the West simultaneously republishes the same cartoons, to show that we are united in our support for freedom of speech and to show that we are fed up with this religious bullying. Look at Facebook - thousands of individuals are doing this already.

You are clearly on the side of the killers. Your entire post is one long attempt to justify their actions. Are you even slightly ashamed?

You are welcome to develop a sense of humour any time you like.

You are perfectly welcome to your religion, and I wish you the very best of luck with it. I mean that sincerely - I genuinely hope it brings you fulfilment and happiness.

Just stop expecting the rest of us to obey its rules.

Peace

If you don't know what you post yourself, then you should refrain from posting. You used the word God in your quote;-

Rather, what is expected of a Muslim in Europe today is that you bow down before the god of free speech until you accept that every Prophet can be insulted – and you learn to like it or laugh it off!

Also you talk as if Muslims are telling you what to accept, we are not, we accept that people don't wish to convert to Islam, which is your own problems. What people are basically trying to say is that they are like some people in the past, who fought against oppression, slavery, or bad treatment by bad bosses-but this is not the same. Publishing cartoons just to offend people is wrong. Your are not fighting for justice, you are fighting for the right to say bad things, be abusive without being attacked-where you cannot control some people's reactions. How foolish are they?? They quote the past, and treat themselves as if they are doing the same thing, ie by people who were effected by tyrants.

The people in France, have not been effected by the Muslims, in terms of we have not stopped them from having sex outside of marriage, we have not prevented them from eating pork, or drinking alcohol, they have lived the way they have wished to live-but this wasn't good enough for them, instead of accepting this tolerance from the Muslims, they want to attack the way we THINK-by saying we are not happy until you accept our cartoons. You have not got to the point, your blabbering on about free speech, when people fight for something, whatever it is, they lay out what they wish to have achieved, ie when fighting against slavery, there is not accomplishment, there is not goal here, as if you think that you are going to get the Muslims to not be offended by this is never going to happen.

You say that you wish to for all the papers to publish the cartoons-so you yourself are not getting to the point, first you say that you wish for the Muslims to take the cartoons lightly and not be offended, but the newspapers target audience is non-Muslims so how is that going to change the Muslims???

I don't know what every Muslim is doing on the planet, but I don't agree with cartoons of the Jews either, regardless of our problems, I am not going to act like those Jews who go against Muslims when they worship the one God, where we can pray at a Synagogue, and we certainly don't need unreligious people talking on behalf of Judaism. Even as a Muslim, I hear of Jews who say that they are homosexuals but also are Jewish-I don't agree that they are, as the people who have been given the Torah, you can't pick and choose out of religion. So that also shows that we aren't going to use an example of what some Jews are doing and say that they all are doing it.

I am not interested in making cartoons of non-Muslims, or anything, I am not like you, neither do I need to act as a child who thinks they are doing something funny or clever by saying something that someone doesn't like just to show opposition.

It is actually the west that effects the lives of people abroad;-

1. Taking away what was once children's playgrounds ie the beaches and turning them into tourist destinations, where people are just wearing next to nothing and laying down-so thereby changing the way things are. Even if the place is so nice and beautiful, you would still wish to bring alcohol, which is not a way of enjoying a scenery.

2. The factories abroad, which is hard on the workforce, to work long hours, and targets and targets, its not because ie the company is going to make a loss if the workers worked at a more comfortable pace it because of their greed. They wish to pay the workers little by trying to justify that its what are the average wages, but are happy to pay themselves more then the average by products ie trainers, electronic equipments. Then these business are looking to making more profit every year, if they don't surpass last year's profit they treat it as they make a loss. They wish to run people's lives by making more profit every year, so its not good enough for them to have a comfortable wage to live on, but its ok to pay very little to people who work so hard??

3. You are not fighting on the side that is right, you are only repeating what evil doers have been doing in the past. Where they threw the Prophet Ibrahim peace be upon him into the fire, the believers being persecuted, not because they threatened to kill people, but because they worshipped the one God, been thrown into hot oil, places with scorpions etc.

4. The wars, why did France go into Iraq and Afghanistan??? They again have lost the plot, if you wish to say that you don't want anything to do with religion, then why attack people because the follow Islam?? They didn't have to join the war with the USA-sure they could have got along without France. Talk about as if your righteous, good people but are far from it, attacking women for wearing headscarfs etc.

As above that is a huge lie that anyone can claim that they are fighting for what is right-which is what is good, that people can recognise around the world, again if they fought against tyrants, where people wish to oppose them because of their persecution of people. You are fighting for the right to be abusive to others.-which you are able to do, but trying to control the reaction of people is something that has never happened. How can you control how people react if you wanted to make lewd, perverted cartoons of your Mother and as if she was a dog??

Of course you can publish the cartoons as many times as you like, but that will change nothing, that the Muslims are offended, and that these people are not interested in getting along with others, and tolerating people-the very thing they are accusing us of not doing, tolerating doesn't mean accepting someone's abuse and evil. So the cartoonist goals where to try to control the reaction of those people who would wish to go out an attack them, as of course the majority of the Muslims would not do. So they failed-as they got killed, nevertheless if they were not killed, they would still be facing punishments for attacking religious people as of course its a sin to attack Prophet Jesus peace be upon him.

At the same time as stating that your fighting for "freedom"-such a broad term and nonsense, you then in your previous posts state that Muslims should have a leader so we then are basically more controlled.

Instead of wasting time with cartoons etc, there is a solution, of course such foolish idiots such as yourselves don't talk much of this, but instead of being abusive to people. If you don't like the Muslims, then get your democratic government, or vote whoever will to throw the Muslims out. The Muslims are not going to just give up everything they worked for just because someone doesn't like them, no difference in having bad neighbours who make people's lives difficult. There are the Muslims who also converted to Islam, but of course the Muslims will need to work together and help each other to get places to stay as we don't own homes abroad, you can't just go to a another country and get a home. But nevertheless, issue resolved, also please refrain from bombing countries abroad, its not the Muslims fault, how can people justify bombing, Pakistan, Afghanistan Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Somolia etc you claim its not you but its us that started it, when the masses in the western world don't have a clue what the governments are actually doing in these countries. So you need to make a law to threw the Muslims out, then make another to stop bombing the countries and also another to stop using other countries resources (don't try to justify ie tourism by giving people jobs, they can cope without working in tourism). That's all you need to do, instead of wasting time with cartoons.

[MuslimInshallah]

Assalaamu alaikum,


About 17 years ago, I was travelling in France, and needed to stop overnight in a middle-sized city. It was around the beginning to middle of May. I was there with my husband and my two small children, and expecting my third.


We phoned a tourist information number and got the names of some local hotels. My husband went into the first. He was told the hotel was full. He went into another. The same story. A third hotel was very dirty and unpleasant. He was told there was room there. I took one look at the rooms, and refused. We went on to a nicer hotel. Again, there was no room.


I couldn't believe it! In May? Everything was full?! I suggested to my husband that I go to the next hotel to see about rooms, and I hauled my oversized self out of the car, and walked in. I was greeted very politely by the hotel clerk. Space? Yes, of course! Plenty of rooms. I had a look at a room. It was a nice and clean one. I said we'd take it, and I went to tell my husband and children to come in. The clerk saw my husband and looked like he'd bitten into something unpleasant. But it was too late… he'd already ok'd the room for me.


You see, my husband looked typically Middle Eastern. And I am White. And at that time, I was not wearing a headscarf.


This experience was just one of several we had in France travelling through to meet my relatives. I have also been treated to the lovely things my relatives have said about Muslims/Middle Easterners (both before they were aware of my religious inclinations, and after) and about my darker-skinned children (versus their lighter-skinned cousins).


Much has been said about the use of satire in France. But what is not being discussed is the fact that satire is supposed to be the weapon of the weak against the people and institutions of power. But Muslims in France are not in any position of power. They are routinely discriminated against, mocked and vilified. They are weak.


I am all for satire (in good taste). The weak need ways to bring the powerful to a little humility. But mockery and jeering of the powerful towards the weak is not satire. It is bullying.


I do not support extra-judicial killings (frankly, I'm not keen on capital punishment either...). I do not agree with what the murderers in France did. I also don't think that vigilante justice in the US against police officers is correct. Or that the killing of Pierre Laporte (a politician in Quebec) by the FLQ (Québec Liberation Front) was right. Or the murders in the Irish “troubles”. But we have to be honest in our understandings of these events. When groups of people are mistreated and denied justice, there will be those who will explode and use violent ways to seek redress.


If we twist reality and try to pretend that it is the weak who are powerful, and the unjust strong are upholders of liberty, equality and fraternity, we do not help our societies mature and deal effectively with issues that are tearing our social fabric.


The clamping down by the Federal Government of Canada was not what diffused the terrorist threat in Québec. Frankly, it fanned the flames. It was the accession to political power by the oppressed French-speakers in Québec, and their subsequent ability to access fair treatment, that calmed Canadian society. (smile) Yes, there are still grumblings in English-speaking Canada about Québec getting too much. Or verbal snipings about Québecers being lesser in some way or another. And we have the occasional lunatic who tries to off a politician (like the English-speaker who tried to assassinate the Premier of Québec a couple of years ago, and killed an innocent bystander). But overall, Canada is a pretty quiet place.


Why? Because we are trying to be more just to everyone. We are a very diverse bunch, a mix of every colour and ethnicity and language and culture and religion… new Canadians, Native Canadians, several-generation Canadians… whenever we have been unjust, we have seen strife. So we must struggle to be more just. Our society could not exist otherwise. We are not perfect, but I am heartened by the efforts I have seen in my lifetime. For example, 25 years ago, I would never have expected to see the level of understanding and respect towards Natives peoples in Canada rise to the levels I see today (which are completely deserved and appropriate. I hope we may see even more improvements in this direction). This is a much better way to diffuse tensions than by vilifying Native peoples because some of them took up arms (which has happened).


Do we need to protect the public against violent acts? Yes. Must we hold perpetrators accountable? Yes. Killing is not right. But we must also be honest, and work to address legitimate grievances.


Muslims and people of colour are not well-treated in France. This also is not right. And mocking and insulting the weak is not right.


May God, the One Who Knows and Understands... and Loves, have Mercy on us all.

[czgibson]

Greetings h-n,

I'm not going to address your post in detail, as much of it is irrelevant babble that has nothing to do with the issue of the Paris shootings.

If you don't know what you post yourself, then you should refrain from posting. You used the word God in your quote;-

Rather, what is expected of a Muslim in Europe today is that you bow down before the god of free speech until you accept that every Prophet can be insulted – and you learn to like it or laugh it off!

Those are not my words though, are they? That is a quote from someone else.

The people in France, have not been effected by the Muslims, in terms of we have not stopped them from having sex outside of marriage, we have not prevented them from eating pork, or drinking alcohol, they have lived the way they have wished to live-but this wasn't good enough for them, instead of accepting this tolerance from the Muslims, they want to attack the way we THINK-by saying we are not happy until you accept our cartoons.

Are you insane? Twelve people are dead. What kind of tolerance is this?

Also, why should French non-Muslims should obey Muslim rules?

The wars, why did France go into Iraq and Afghanistan??? They again have lost the plot, if you wish to say that you don't want anything to do with religion, then why attack people because the follow Islam?? They didn't have to join the war with the USA-sure they could have got along without France.

France famously did not join the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

I don't know what you think you're raving about, but you're clearly not living in the real world.

Peace

[Abz2000]

You might well believe that, but non-Muslims do not.

Peace

It were good for them if they did.
And speak for yourself, as they are researching the truth as you type.
Peace to those who follow the guidnce of the King of the Heavens and of the earth.

[h-n]

Greetings h-n,

I'm not going to address your post in detail, as much of it is irrelevant babble that has nothing to do with the issue of the Paris shootings.



Those are not my words though, are they? That is a quote from someone else.



Are you insane? Twelve people are dead. What kind of tolerance is this?

Also, why should French non-Muslims should obey Muslim rules?



France famously did not join the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

I don't know what you think you're raving about, but you're clearly not living in the real world.

Peace

You can't reply as it is the truth, the fact that Muslims live their lives by what is taught by God, so to say it has nothing to do with the situation is foolish.

Why bother using a quote if you don't accept it yourself?? That is how stupid you are.

As per the message from God, we have to make sure that we die in a state that is successful for the hereafter, you don't know when you are going to die, and Muslims should be prepared. Those people in the past died after being persecuted, ie the magicians at Pharoah's court accepted the one God, which Pharoah chopped their hands and feet at alternative sides and died. So what your complaining about?? These people who died making their cartoons (the others who didn't still need to be prepared for the hereafter), were wishing to use other people to protect them, they should be willing to die if you believe in something so much-but of course they weren't as they weren't fighting against oppression, a tyrant, they were fighting for the right to be abusive.

So you have to make sure that you don't die whilst having butt implants,
Make sure that you don't die whilst drinking alcohol
Make sure that you don't die whilst clubbing
Make sure that you don't die whilst having illicit sexual relationships

But die in the state of worshipping the one God, remembering the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell.

I have already and other Muslims stated is that no, they shouldn't have been killed, but leave it for them to die. But I have zero sympathy, and I don't care that they died just as people who die whilst being abusive to others, that is their problem.

Its not about Muslim rule its about what your stating that you doing but being a hypocrite, you talk about tolerance but you don't tolerate others by being abusive to people, so we are being tolerant as we are not the ones that are making stupid cartoons. Also forbidding headscarfs etc where made after Muslims lived there, it wasn't because they were not following and being law abiding citizens, it was because they decided they didn't like it and wanted to get rid of it, so they are being intolerant, whilst at the same time as telling people to be tolerant.

What is France being bombing recently?? Iraq, What are they also doing in Niger?? Its pathetic, whilst claiming to be civilised but doing the attacking, even their past about having colonies and wishing to take over the world.

I am living in the real world, where the homosexuals at the time of Prophet Lut peace be upon him were being abusive to him for no other reason that he was telling them to stop their awful behaviour, they then stormed to his home. The people who supported the homosexuals are no difference to what people are supporting today, they attack people who are doing no other thing but worshipping God, whilst they themselves side with being who are immoral, wearing rubbish clothing etc. Its a no brainer, your on the side of evil and your attacking people who don't agree with you.

In regards to this shooting, then join the police force and catch the culprits who seek to attack you. There is no need to go on Islamic forums to tell us how to think. We follow the law of God. We certainly don't care of your opinions when you happy to use people for sex and then dump them as if they are meaningless and then say that you respect people more. Even with the dead, you say its OK for them to be homosexual, have sex outside of marriage and be treated disrespectfully, but then bleat as if you really cared about them.

You are not better then;-

Prophet Jesus peace be upon him
Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him
Prophet Solomon peace be upon him
Prophet Noah peace be upon him
Prophet David peace be upon him
Prophet Jonah peace be upon him
Prophet Moses peace be upon him
Prophet Lut peace be upon him
Prophet Job peace be upon him
Prophet Salih peace be upon him etc that we are going to listen to you over them.

Everytime you speak, along with people who are critical of Islam are only showing that if you were alive at the time of Prophet Noah peace be upon him you would have been drowned in the flood. There is nothing else that comes into our minds, so sprout about your nonsense, as we will see each other on the Day of Judgement, where you have not friends, where people will disown each other, just as Christopher Hitchens who died cares not of what he said and doesn't care about the people saying he did a good job, he didn't do a good job. He would ever ask for an opportunity to come back into this world to oppose the Atheists. Everyone will be brought on the Day of Judgement, everyone will die and be faced with the justice of God Almighty.

[hameedhamza]

you get burned, when you play with fire

[czgibson]

Greetings Eric H,

I am a Christian, and I found those cartoons highly offensive. Clearly there are millions of Muslims who have also found those cartoons offensive, but they have not killed anyone. Do you seriously want to offend all those millions of Muslims yet again, because of what four individuals have done?

The intention of a mass broadcast of the cartoons would not be to offend Muslims; it would be to uphold free speech, which is far more important. If it were to happen simultaneously, it could be preceded by a message saying "If you are Muslim and think you might find this offensive, then don't watch it". Problem solved.

Muslims need to understand that many people are critical of Islam, and in a free society they have the right to be critical of Islam. No amount of religious bullying is going to change that.

Greetings h-n,

Why bother using a quote if you don't accept it yourself?? That is how stupid you are.

I suppose this discussion has been a bit much for you. Since you are either unwilling or unable to discuss the topic in a civilised or rational way, perhaps you won't mind if I ignore your crazy ramblings from now on.

you get burned, when you play with fire

Here we have another person who sides with the killers.

While we're on the topic, would anyone else like to openly declare their support for murder?

Peace

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

The intention of a mass broadcast of the cartoons would not be to offend Muslims;

Never the less, these cartoons are offensive. I heard on Sky news today that their journalists have been told not to show any of these cartoons in their coverage, but why? Are they afraid of retaliation, or do they recognize the cartoons might offend, and they do not need or want to offend anyone. I hope it is the later reason.

it would be to uphold free speech,

But we know that not all speech is free, 'pleb' caused serious problems, and I don't personally find it that offensive. Jeremy Clarkson was in serious trouble for using the 'n' word; and it was edited out of the show.

which is far more important. If it were to happen simultaneously, it could be preceded by a message saying "If you are Muslim and think you might find this offensive, then don't watch it". Problem solved.

Not sure that would be helpful, the people who would buy the magazine like a laugh and joke at someone else's expense, so millions of Muslims would know they are being ridiculed even without seeing the cartoons.

Muslims need to understand that many people are critical of Islam,

We can live with criticism, but openly mocking the sacred is beyond the bounds of criticism.

No amount of religious bullying is going to change that.

In France about nine percent of the population is Muslim, that seems to be advocating bullying a minority, and that is not healthy. Why is there the need to be offensive, I don't understand how anything good can come of being offensive

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

[Hulk]

Muslims need to understand that many people are critical of Islam, and in a free society they have the right to be critical of Islam. No amount of religious bullying is going to change that.

There is a difference between proper criticism and plain mockery. Proper criticism allows for the other party to defend themselves intellectually. Perhaps you might benefit from member MuslimInshallah's post.

[h-n]

Greetings Eric H,



The intention of a mass broadcast of the cartoons would not be to offend Muslims; it would be to uphold free speech, which is far more important. If it were to happen simultaneously, it could be preceded by a message saying "If you are Muslim and think you might find this offensive, then don't watch it". Problem solved.

Muslims need to understand that many people are critical of Islam, and in a free society they have the right to be critical of Islam. No amount of religious bullying is going to change that.

Greetings h-n,



I suppose this discussion has been a bit much for you. Since you are either unwilling or unable to discuss the topic in a civilised or rational way, perhaps you won't mind if I ignore your crazy ramblings from now on.

Here we have another person who sides with the killers.

While we're on the topic, would anyone else like to openly declare their support for murder?

Peace

I don't have an issue with you ignoring posts as you have already ignored the relevant points, as people can see themselves. You accuse me of not living in the real world, then blabber on about free speech and that Muslims need to realise that people don't like Islam-WE ALREADY KNOW!!! That plenty of people don't like Islam.-So where have you been all this time, that you think Muslims need to be told this. We don't care, they are simply making the same mistakes as people aforetime.

You accuse us of supporting murder, it wouldn't have made a difference if he was run over by a bus, we are only thinking of that they are now dead and regretting what they have said. You accuse us of supporting murder, when it is your own western governments that have killed so many people worldwide.

You also quote that if Muslims find something offensive, then don't see, or watch it, here proving how thick you are;-

1. You earlier stated that Muslims should learn to laugh at these cartoons-so that means that you want Muslims to see them??? Then as above, your telling Muslims to ignore them. I also stated earlier to get to the point, as I clearly stated that these papers target audience are non-Muslim, so what are they hoping to achieve, if they have no dialogue with Muslims in a respectable way and at the same time saying they wish for Muslims to behave differently??

2. So to you its;-

Make a cartoon to show that we don't like Islam
Make another cartoon to show that we don't like Islam
Make another cartoon to show that we don't like Islam
Make another cartoon to show that we don't like Islam
Make another cartoon to show that we don't like Islam,

Where as above they are able to write and make cartoons, its not about freedom of speech-its about controlling how others respond to you!! If your freedom of speech was restricted, then you wouldn't be able to make cartoons in the first place.

3. So as previously stated, you wish to control the reaction of people, how can you do that??? How can you say that if you speak badly about someone, that you will not be attacked??? There are people who are willing to attack people for just saying something badly-of course plenty of people wouldn't do it.

4. So the idiots who made this cartoon didn't make the cartoon to just say to the non-Muslims we don't like Islam, we don't like Islam, it was about doing something to purposely anger Muslims. It wasn't solely on trying to stoke people's reaction against Islam, the huge reason was the fact that Muslims don't like it, so they chose to do it. So they didn't wish to make cartoons of the Prophet for any other reason, not because of freedom of speech, but because it was upsetting to the Muslims.

5. Why don't you actually read, and listen to what some people actually say, for example, do you think that this anti-Islam is going to go away for the rest of this year?? The next year? The year after? If we are still around. people believe it will, there were quotes by officials that they believe the war on terror will last for decades (if they think that God will just give them so long, as of course these countries will not be around like this, the anti-Christ will be arriving and the Prophet Jesus peace be upon him returning). So it is important to get to the point, and what you think people should be doing, you quote bullying-but actually your the bully, by telling Muslims to accept abusive cartoons, and if we don't then there is something wrong with us, and that we are not civilised like the cartoon makers you say. You even quoted that people should leave if they don't like what certain people (not all are doing), so if we don't want to accept abuse, we should leave-that is what you say. Then go to say that people are fed up of the Muslims as we don't accept their abuse.

So you have shown yourself to be dumb, a hypocrite (ie accusing us of being intolerant when you yourself are promoting it-by hiding being abuse by "freedom of speech"), a liar (where you cannot for one minute admit that the cartoonists chose to make the cartoon with the full knowledge that it was offensive to the Muslims-this was their motivation, not because they wished to draw the Prophet for any other reason etc).

So your lies, will be confronted on the Day of Judgement. It is the same with evil, when they are in large numbers, they think they are in a position of strength, even as Pharoah was a tyrant, and thought that his place would continue. It is not the Muslims that you have to be concerned about, it is God Al-Mighty, whereas he has destroyed people in the past.

[Hulk]

Thank you for sharing your insights Br Eric H, if the "movement" were to be about mocking homosexuals, blacks, jews in the name of "free speech" I think many would realise the problem in it. It is a sad state that we are in.

[Abz2000]

Thank you for sharing your insights Br Eric H, if the "movement" were to be about mocking homosexuals, blacks, jews in the name of "free speech" I think many would realise the problem in it. It is a sad state that we are in.

Sad state?
It's a wonderful state.

Islam is in the spotlight like not even the best da'ees could have hoped for, and there is so much concern over it (as happened in Makkah) that people with sense are seeing the error of their ways and researching it.
It has been proven by the infidel leadership that Islam is different to all other ways of life and that it frightens them like no other way of life.
I'd say it's a propaganda coup.

They were so concerned about the call of the Prophet pbuh that they'd warn all pilgrim groups and tribal leaders in advance, people who hadn't heard the Prophet pbuh's name before lol, made them want to know more and the sensible ones accepted the truth.
Also, Allah is making it so stark that no human being of this age will be able to pretend he never heard of Prophet Muhammad pbuh at judgement.
What a wonderful way to make people sit up and think.

[Muhammad]

Greetings czgibson,

You seem to be increasingly playing the role of the media, by homing in on particular statements then blowing them out of proportion. Your aim seems to be to pick out statements that can be misconstrued as supporting murder or killing. If people suggest that freedom must be used responsibly unless one is prepared to face negative consequences, that does not equate to supporting the acts of murder in Paris. There are plenty of clear statements condemning such actions - even though an automatic apology from every Muslim is unwarranted - but of course in the event that such condemnations are made they seem to go unnoticed.

You argue, quite crudely, for freedom to offend yet overlook the freedom to be offended. Why is it that the moment someone says something against Jews, the media pounces on them as being anti-Semitic, yet when Muslims are the target of attack it should be accepted silently? Did you know that even Charlie Hebdo itself, in 2009, fired a cartoonist who offended Jewish communities with a cartoon about the engagement of Nicholas Sarkozy’s son to a Jewish woman that was deemed “anti-semitic”? I wonder if those who are bravely re-posting the cartoons everywhere would apply the same courage to posting anti-Semitism.

Islam is a religion that is in a huge mess at the moment, and the sooner it is re-organised (or even Reformed - how about that for an idea?) the better it will be for planet Earth as a whole.

After all this time I would have hoped you knew the difference between Islam and Muslims. Islam, as a religion, is divine guidance for all of humanity. Muslims, as followers of Islam, are imperfect human beings and yes, they may be in a bad state at the moment and many of them may not be following its teachings. So the solution is returning to the correct teachings of Islam which will be our salvation, not warped ideas of reformation which are in effect calls for dissolution.

[czgibson]

Greetings Eric H,

Never the less, these cartoons are offensive. I heard on Sky news today that their journalists have been told not to show any of these cartoons in their coverage, but why? Are they afraid of retaliation, or do they recognize the cartoons might offend, and they do not need or want to offend anyone. I hope it is the later reason.

Sky News, and all the other media outlets, are not publishing the cartoons primarily due to fear of violence. That is the the reason that is uppermost in their minds. Ask any journalist.

But we know that not all speech is free, 'pleb' caused serious problems, and I don't personally find it that offensive. Jeremy Clarkson was in serious trouble for using the 'n' word; and it was edited out of the show.

Yes, of course. There are lots of examples of legitimate restrictions on free speech. You're not allowed to falsely shout "Fire!" in crowded theatre; the law protects the identity of vulnerable people in court cases, and so on. These are legitimate restrictions that are designed to prevent harm. Anti-Islamic cartoons may well cause offence, but they do not harm anyone.

Not sure that would be helpful, the people who would buy the magazine like a laugh and joke at someone else's expense, so millions of Muslims would know they are being ridiculed even without seeing the cartoons.

Groups of people get ridiculed in the media all the time. Politicians, celebrities, you name it. Why should Muslims (or any other religious group) be any different?

People are free to insult my atheist beliefs as much as they want. I'm not going to threaten violence in return.

We can live with criticism, but openly mocking the sacred is beyond the bounds of criticism.

Why? Some people think religion deserves mockery. It's one of the most direct and effective forms of criticism there is.

In France about nine percent of the population is Muslim, that seems to be advocating bullying a minority, and that is not healthy. Why is there the need to be offensive, I don't understand how anything good can come of being offensive

Satire, by its very nature, is often offensive. Its purpose is to wake people up to some of the crazy things that people do or believe. It performs a vital function in society by mocking pretension, ignorance or injustice.

Suicide bombers are pretty much all religious people. Those who practise female genital mutilation are pretty much all religious too. Some of us find those acts offensive and barbaric, and we should be free to mock and denigrate those who practise them.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

Eric, we can all see that you're a good man, and that you wish only the best for everybody. Personally, I'd have no hesitation in letting you look after my pets and I'd even let you marry my sister if that's what you both wanted. :p

But the world is a dangerous place, with lots of crazy people living in it amongst good people like yourself. Simply hoping and praying that people will live peacefully with each other isn't going to work, much as we all wish it would.

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings Muhammad,

Long time no speak. :)

Greetings czgibson,

You seem to be increasingly playing the role of the media, by homing in on particular statements then blowing them out of proportion. Your aim seems to be to pick out statements that can be misconstrued as supporting murder or killing. If people suggest that freedom must be used responsibly unless one is prepared to face negative consequences, that does not equate to supporting the acts of murder in Paris.

In this conversation, it absolutely does.

In the case we are discussing, we know what the negative consequences have been. Dead bodies. If you stood over a murder victim and said "you get burned, when you play with fire", that unequivocally expresses support for the murder. How could it not?

There are plenty of clear statements condemning such actions - even though an automatic apology from every Muslim is unwarranted - but of course in the event that such condemnations are made they seem to go unnoticed.

There has been widespread condemnation of the Hebdo attacks from the Muslim community, and that is of course welcome. I don't think anybody is deliberately setting out to conceal this condemnation.

But who is going to stop the next terrorist attack in the name of Islam? You? Your fellow Muslims?

You argue, quite crudely, for freedom to offend yet overlook the freedom to be offended.

Of course people are free to be offended. I don't deny it for a moment.

Why is it that the moment someone says something against Jews, the media pounces on them as being anti-Semitic, yet when Muslims are the target of attack it should be accepted silently?

It's a grey area, but one perceived difference is that Jews in such a context are considered to be a race, and Muslims are not. Anti-Semitism in general is an attack on people for who they are, not what they believe.

I take your point, however, because it is a good one. Muslims have their own equivalent, of course, 'Islamophobia'. In the society I live in, Islamophobia is currently the last acceptable form of racism. I get very worried by the things I hear people around me saying about Muslims.

I am very much in favour of criticism of Islam as a religion, as I believe it is both untrue and dangerous, but I'm fully aware that most Muslims are peaceful people with as much human worth as anyone else. My good opinion of the majority of the Muslim public is one that is becoming rarer.

I frequently see English school children whose steadfast opinion is "Muslim = terrorist", simple as that. I have spent many hours patiently trying to explain to them that this is far from the truth. But all they have to do to feel justified is point at the news. To say that Islam has an image problem in this country is a massive understatement.

Did you know that even Charlie Hebdo itself, in 2009, fired a cartoonist who offended Jewish communities with a cartoon about the engagement of Nicholas Sarkozy’s son to a Jewish woman that was deemed “anti-semitic”? I wonder if those who are bravely re-posting the cartoons everywhere would apply the same courage to posting anti-Semitism.

I did not know that, and I can see why you think it is unfair. I think the distinction I mentioned earlier, imperfect though it may be, has played its part in the development of the legal framework that surrounds this topic.

After all this time I would have hoped you knew the difference between Islam and Muslims. Islam, as a religion, is divine guidance for all of humanity. Muslims, as followers of Islam, are imperfect human beings and yes, they may be in a bad state at the moment and many of them may not be following its teachings. So the solution is returning to the correct teachings of Islam which will be our salvation, not warped ideas of reformation which are in effect calls for dissolution.

I can see what you're getting at here, but I think it's a pretty cheap distinction that relies on your prior belief that Islam is perfect divine guidance.

From my point of view, Islam is the sum total of its scriptures, practices and adherents. As a materialist, that is the only view of any religion that I can take. And we both agree, despite our differing terminology, that Islam (say I) / Muslims (say you) are in a mess.

I sincerely hope that Islam undergoes a reformation, and that Muslims experience an enlightenment in a similar way that Christians did in Europe. I would guess that you don't want this to happen principally because enlightenment and scientific progress necessarily lead to a diminution in the influence of religion. Or perhaps you have other reasons that you think are more important?

In Europe, religion persists, but for the most part we have outgrown it. I think we have gained far more than we have lost in the process.

I don't see how simply "returning to the correct teachings of Islam" can be a realistic solution. How are the teachings of Islam to be presented in a unified way? You know yourself that the Qur'an and Sunnah can be interpreted in a huge number of ways; if that were not so then why do huge numbers of interpretive scholars exist? Scholars disagree with each other all the time, and so any misguided individual Muslim looking to cause trouble in the cause of Allah has no difficulty in finding some "authentic scholarly opinion" to support his violent actions.

I don't know what the solution is, but part of the solution must involve being able to talk to each other openly and honestly. Of course we will disagree, and we may even offend each other at times, but that is a by-product of having very different views. I am grateful to you and the other mods for giving me the chance to communicate with Muslims on this forum for the last ten years.

Peace

[Futuwwa]

I also want to know - if a person like Anjem Chaudhary, clearly enjoying the benefits of life in Britain and who condoned the attacks, uses his freedom of expression to suffocate people in Britain, then would a non-Muslim be wrong in expecting his freedom of expression against Muslim beliefs in a Muslim nation?

Why does Anjem Choudary's rights under British law have any normative implications for any Islamic country?

[Futuwwa]

I hope every news organisation in the West simultaneously republishes the same cartoons, to show that we are united in our support for freedom of speech and to show that we are fed up with this religious bullying. Look at Facebook - thousands of individuals are doing this already.

Oooh, what a brave stand, publishing something that's taboo for a powerless minority with no way to make you pay, other than kamikaze attacks like this, the risk of which would be negligible if really every news organization did.

If you support the publication of offensive material for the sake of making a statement for freedom of speech, how about publishing something that's taboo to mainstream society? Why not, if the point is to show that freedom of speech trumps sensibility? How about something making fun of holocaust victims? A cartoon that mocks holocaust survivors as whiners with victimhood complexes should do it.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Oooh, what a brave stand, publishing something that's taboo for a powerless minority with no way to make you pay, other than kamikaze attacks like this, the risk of which would be negligible if really every news organization did.

You speak as if the murder of innocent civilians is a small matter.

If you support the publication of offensive material for the sake of making a statement for freedom of speech, how about publishing something that's taboo to mainstream society? Why not, if the point is to show that freedom of speech trumps sensibility? How about something making fun of holocaust victims? A cartoon that mocks holocaust survivors as whiners with victimhood complexes should do it.

As I have mentioned, the necessary restrictions on freedom of speech that exist in law are designed to prevent harm. The publications you describe would be a glorification of harm and violence, and it is right for the law to prevent such things.

Peace

[Hulk]

If you stood over a murder victim and said "you get burned, when you play with fire", that unequivocally expresses support for the murder. How could it not?

Err not at all, just because someone expresses their opinion that so-and-so shouldn't be doing something dangerous doesn't mean that they are in support for whatever misfortune happens. If a man who plays with lions everyday one day gets attacked, just because someone comments that "He knew the dangers and he still did it." doesn't mean that they in support of what happened to him.

But who is going to stop the next terrorist attack in the name of Islam? You? Your fellow Muslims?

What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that muslims are responsible for whatever wrong actions a person does as long as the person happens to be a muslim?

It's a grey area, but one perceived difference is that Jews in such a context are considered to be a race, and Muslims are not. Anti-Semitism in general is an attack on people for who they are, not what they believe.

I think if you were to ask around, you will find that one's religious beliefs have more to do with their identity than their ethnicity.

From my point of view, Islam is the sum total of its scriptures, practices and adherents. As a materialist, that is the only view of any religion that I can take. And we both agree, despite our differing terminology, that Islam (say I) / Muslims (say you) are in a mess.

Then your understanding would be based on improper reasoning. There is a difference between what a book instructs it's readers to do and what some readers who claim to follow the book do. If your conclusion that there is something wrong with the book is based on what you see people who claim to follow it do then it's faulty reasoning.

I sincerely hope that Islam undergoes a reformation, and that Muslims experience an enlightenment in a similar way that Christians did in Europe. I would guess that you don't want this to happen principally because enlightenment and scientific progress necessarily lead to a diminution in the influence of religion.

And what enlightenment may that be? And how did you come to the conclusion that scientific progress leads to the diminution in the influence of religion?

I don't see how simply "returning to the correct teachings of Islam" can be a realistic solution. How are the teachings of Islam to be presented in a unified way? You know yourself that the Qur'an and Sunnah can be interpreted in a huge number of ways; if that were not so then why do huge numbers of interpretive scholars exist? Scholars disagree with each other all the time, and so any misguided individual Muslim looking to cause trouble in the cause of Allah has no difficulty in finding some "authentic scholarly opinion" to support his violent actions.

Just because there might be many people having different interpretations of a book doesn't mean that all of them are equally valid, or valid at all. On an intellectual stage, there's no "extremist interpretation" that can stand a chance against a real scholar. It's foolish to conclude that "it's all open to interpretation" without actually knowing the full context of the situation.

I don't know what the solution is, but part of the solution must involve being able to talk to each other openly and honestly. Of course we will disagree, and we may even offend each other at times, but that is a by-product of having very different views. I am grateful to you and the other mods for giving me the chance to communicate with Muslims on this forum for the last ten years.

What you are describing is a proper discussion, but what you mentioned that you are in support of is plain mockery in the name of "free speech".

[Futuwwa]

You speak as if the murder of innocent civilians is a small matter.

What part of "the risk of which would be negligible if really every news organization did" do you have a hard time understanding?

As I have mentioned, the necessary restrictions on freedom of speech that exist in law are designed to prevent harm. The publications you describe would be a glorification of harm and violence, and it is right for the law to prevent such things.

Ah, so freedom of speech applies all the time, except when you think there's a really good reason to restrict it. You get to make exceptions to it and should get to have them enforced by the coercive power of the state, but Muslims should just have to suck it up.

[czgibson]

Greetings Hulk,

Err not at all, just because someone expresses their opinion that so-and-so shouldn't be doing something dangerous doesn't mean that they are in support for whatever misfortune happens. If a man who plays with lions everyday one day gets attacked, just because someone comments that "He knew the dangers and he still did it." doesn't mean that they in support of what happened to him.

I take your point, but why are you comparing adherents of your religion to dangerous wild animals?

What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that muslims are responsible for whatever wrong actions a person does as long as the person happens to be a muslim?

Not directly, but Muslims should at least try to root out the psychopathic killers that exist in their community.

I think if you were to ask around, you will find that one's religious beliefs have more to do with their identity than their ethnicity.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Remember than Jews inherit their Jewish identity from their mother's family line.

Then your understanding would be based on improper reasoning. There is a difference between what a book instructs it's readers to do and what some readers who claim to follow the book do.

Of course.

If your conclusion that there is something wrong with the book is based on what you see people who claim to follow it do then it's faulty reasoning.

My conclusion that there is something wrong with the Qur'an is based on the fact that I've read it.

And what enlightenment may that be?

The Enlightenment

And how did you come to the conclusion that scientific progress leads to the diminution in the influence of religion?

Because it demonstrably does. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to be religious. In the West, humanity has moved from a situation where natural phenomena like thunder and lightning, earthquakes and disease were dimly understood and it was assumed that God was the only explanation for them. We now have a much deeper understanding of these things, and our explanations for them do not require any gods at all.

Just because there might be many people having different interpretations of a book doesn't mean that all of them are equally valid, or valid at all.

Of course. That doesn't stop some lunatic terrorist from choosing to believe a wrong interpretation though, does it?

On an intellectual stage, there's no "extremist interpretation" that can stand a chance against a real scholar.

How do you know who the real scholars are? More to the point, how does an ignorant, corruptible young fanatic with an axe to grind know who the real scholars are?

It's foolish to conclude that "it's all open to interpretation" without actually knowing the full context of the situation.

I don't conclude that. Clearly there are disagreements though.

What you are describing is a proper discussion, but what you mentioned that you are in support of is plain mockery in the name of "free speech".

The point is this: mockery of your religion is going to occur. That is just a plain fact, I'm afraid. I don't see any good reason why it should be prevented either. The question is how are you going to respond?

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings Futuwwa,

What part of "the risk of which would be negligible if really every news organization did" do you have a hard time understanding?

You're talking about future killings now, and maybe you're right - the risk would be spread among a large number of news outlets. I'm talking about the killings which have already happened, which your statement belittles when taken as a whole.

Ah, so freedom of speech applies all the time, except when you think there's a really good reason to restrict it. You get to make exceptions to it and should get to have them enforced by the coercive power of the state, but Muslims should just have to suck it up.

It's not up to me, it's up to the law. The law is imperfect, but as it happens, I think most of the time the law in the UK strikes a good balance between security and freedom of speech.

If Muslims want to live in the UK, then yes, they should obey the law of the land.

Peace

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Abz,

Sad state?
Islam is in the spotlight like not even the best da'ees could have hoped for, and there is so much concern over it (as happened in Makkah) that people with sense are seeing the error of their ways and researching it.
It has been proven by the infidel leadership that Islam is different to all other ways of life and that it frightens them like no other way of life.
I'd say it's a propaganda coup.

This is not the type of spotlight a Muslim should want. Islam is being portrayed as a violent religion and Muslims as a dangerous subversive minority that will kill to get there way. If there is any fear, it is over violence that Muslims may cause and this is unfortunate because most Muslims don't condone these actions. Even Muslims who believe that in an *Islamic* state there should punishment for mocking Muhammad do not condone vigilantism in secular nations. Unfortunately these types of acts have a polarizing affect and the propaganda machine that is the Media will use it against Muslims. And believe me, as a Catholic I know all too well just how the Media bashes and distorts truths, so I completely sympathize with my Muslim friends who have been facing bombardment by the propaganda mills. The difference I would say is that Catholics do pose an *intellectual* threat to the secular West, being that we call back our people to faith in God and following the natural law which the secularists detest, and this is the type of "threat" you want to pose to the West, and not a threat of physical harm. So I disagree with you that this type of spotlight is good for the Muslim community or that it will help people approach Islam in accurate and non distorted way.

Oooh, what a brave stand, publishing something that's taboo for a powerless minority with no way to make you pay, other than kamikaze attacks like this, the risk of which would be negligible if really every news organization did.

Peace be with you Futuwwa, I don't agree with mocking what people hold sacred but at the same time we live in secular societies that in principle value the concept of freedom of speech. Is this freedom exercised equally? No. Do some groups have a privileged status? Yes. Is this right? Of course not, but neither are so called "kamikaze" attacks. As mentioned above that I am Catholic, and I would say the Church has been far more maligned than Islam has, yet never would I condone physical harm (let alone killing!) of anyone who mocks what I hold sacred. We can't treat this as if it were a situation where certain Muslims were pushed over the edge, it's simply never appropriate murder and act as a vigilante.

Pax et bonum

[Muhammad]

Greetings czgibson,

In this conversation, it absolutely does.

In the case we are discussing, we know what the negative consequences have been. Dead bodies. If you stood over a murder victim and said "you get burned, when you play with fire", that unequivocally expresses support for the murder. How could it not?

You have yourself admitted that freedom of speech is not absolute - it should not cause harm. Likewise, if people express their view that freedom of speech should be used responsibly rather than a means to provoke reaction, it in no way shows support for a particular action of murder. I have not seen anyone celebrating over a dead body here, so let us not pretend that is the case. I found your comment about Muslims and wild animals particularly distasteful. This is not the kind of open and honest communication that leads to respect and understanding.

But who is going to stop the next terrorist attack in the name of Islam? You? Your fellow Muslims?

Extremists are criminals exploiting Islam. This fact is clear when many, even a majority, of their victims are actually Muslims. We also need to look at the wider picture and realise that the responsibility for their actions does not solely rest with Muslims but others too, who propagate the notion of a war against Islam and perpetuate killing, humiliation and denigration of Muslims worldwide.

It's a grey area, but one perceived difference is that Jews in such a context are considered to be a race, and Muslims are not. Anti-Semitism in general is an attack on people for who they are, not what they believe.

Why is it acceptable to attack people for what they believe, but not for who they are? Is this distinction truly important as far as preventing harm and maintaining security are concerned? It is rather a shame that a grey area could not exist when it comes to Muslims.

I am very much in favour of criticism of Islam as a religion, as I believe it is both untrue and dangerous, but I'm fully aware that most Muslims are peaceful people with as much human worth as anyone else. My good opinion of the majority of the Muslim public is one that is becoming rarer.

Criticism is totally different than mockery and ridicule. Through dialogue we can achieve understanding and clarity. But mockery is one-sided and devoid of any value.

I can see what you're getting at here, but I think it's a pretty cheap distinction that relies on your prior belief that Islam is perfect divine guidance.

From my point of view, Islam is the sum total of its scriptures, practices and adherents. As a materialist, that is the only view of any religion that I can take. And we both agree, despite our differing terminology, that Islam (say I) / Muslims (say you) are in a mess.

Even as a non-Muslim, you can easily read about the multitude of examples of the Prophet's :saws: mercy and tolerance. You can read about Islam's prohibition on lying, cheating and causing harm to others. Yet there are many Muslims that do not follow these teachings, whether due to ignorance or otherwise. Do you still deny the distinction between the teachings of Islam and what some adherents practice?

I sincerely hope that Islam undergoes a reformation, and that Muslims experience an enlightenment in a similar way that Christians did in Europe. I would guess that you don't want this to happen principally because enlightenment and scientific progress necessarily lead to a diminution in the influence of religion. Or perhaps you have other reasons that you think are more important?

The Enlightenment was exactly what I had in mind when replying to your comment. 'Enlightenment' seems to suggest that religion is backward and godlessness is the way forward. The resulting immorality and degradation of principles is manifest today. But from Islamic history, we know of a Golden Age when Muslims were very educated and at the forefront of scientific discovery, whose scholarly works are still referenced today. I do not recall any of them feeling the need to remove themselves from religion.

I don't see how simply "returning to the correct teachings of Islam" can be a realistic solution. How are the teachings of Islam to be presented in a unified way? You know yourself that the Qur'an and Sunnah can be interpreted in a huge number of ways; if that were not so then why do huge numbers of interpretive scholars exist? Scholars disagree with each other all the time, and so any misguided individual Muslim looking to cause trouble in the cause of Allah has no difficulty in finding some "authentic scholarly opinion" to support his violent actions.

The fact is that any misguided individual looking to cause trouble does not have to look far. The teachings of any religion or ideology can be distorted when one wishes to cause trouble. We even see the 'war on terror' being used to justify the massacre of whole countries. Islam is a religion with firm foundations and principles. If one studies it, they will realise that the differences are for the most part concerning minor issues. By plucking out one or two verses from the Qur'an or one or two Hadeeth, clearly one is going to have a distorted picture. By having a complete and holistic view, that is when true understanding comes. This much is clear, that ridiculing Islam is neither the way to dispel the myth that it is 'dangerous' nor to present its true teachings.

[ardianto]

This is not the type of spotlight a Muslim should want. Islam is being portrayed as a violent religion and Muslims as a dangerous subversive minority that will kill to get there way. If there is any fear, it is over violence that Muslims may cause and this is unfortunate because most Muslims don't condone these actions. Even Muslims who believe that in an *Islamic* state there should punishment for mocking Muhammad do not condone vigilantism in secular nations. Unfortunately these types of acts have a polarizing affect and the propaganda machine that is the Media will use it against Muslims. And believe me, as a Catholic I know all too well just how the Media bashes and distorts truths, so I completely sympathize with my Muslim friends who have been facing bombardment by the propaganda mills. The difference I would say is that Catholics do pose an *intellectual* threat to the secular West, being that we call back our people to faith in God and following the natural law which the secularists detest, and this is the type of "threat" you want to pose to the West, and not a threat of physical harm. So I disagree with you that this type of spotlight is good for the Muslim community or that it will help people approach Islam in accurate and non distorted way.

Peace be with you, Sojourn.

I do not condone vigilantism. If there was a media that insult Islam I would choose non violent ways such as dialog , or, as the last way, I would sue them to the court. Unfortunately not all Muslims think like me. There are Muslims who prefer to choose violent way. In this matter I could tell them to not do violence. But would they listen to me?. They would not. And this is the problem.

Extremism has become major problem in the Muslim world, and get huge attention from the moderate Muslims. Without the West know, the moderate Muslims actually have done many efforts to prevent and dampen extremism. But unfortunately there is disturbance from some non-Muslims who still provoke Muslims. It makes the efforts to prevent and dampen extremism become useless. Yes, how could I tell other Muslims to not hate non-Muslims if there were non-Muslims who rant that Islam should be hated?.

So, if we want to prevent and dampen extremism we must cooperate.

:)

[Hulk]

I take your point, but why are you comparing adherents of your religion to dangerous wild animals?

If you read what I said properly, you will that I was making a general statement and not specifically mentioning muslims. Nevertheless, it's a red herring on your part. I've pointed out the error in your careless statement.

Not directly, but Muslims should at least try to root out the psychopathic killers that exist in their community.

The responsibility of reporting dangerous individuals to the authority lies on everyone in the community regardless of their religious beliefs. It's plain stupidity to say that a person is responsible for someone else's actions just because they happen to be of the same religion.

Of course.

My conclusion that there is something wrong with the Qur'an is based on the fact that I've read it.

Yet, initially your conclusion was based on the actions of people who claim to be following the Quran. Now your conclusion is based on you having read the Quran? Are we supposed to just take your word for it? That when you read the Quran you understood it completely as it should be understood? Your statements beg a lot of questions.

Because it demonstrably does. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to be religious. In the West, humanity has moved from a situation where natural phenomena like thunder and lightning, earthquakes and disease were dimly understood and it was assumed that God was the only explanation for them. We now have a much deeper understanding of these things, and our explanations for them do not require any gods at all.

Ah, the typical atheist narrative of "history of religion". It's really just a strawman fallacy. "You believe in God because you don't know how these things work, now we are smarter and know how things work, therefore your belief in God is no longer necessary.".

Of course. That doesn't stop some lunatic terrorist from choosing to believe a wrong interpretation though, does it?

If someone uses a cookbook wrongly and the dish tastes bad, the responsibility lies on the person who cooked the dish, not the cookbook itself. This is common sense.

How do you know who the real scholars are? More to the point, how does an ignorant, corruptible young fanatic with an axe to grind know who the real scholars are?

Through knowledge. For starters, you can ask those who are more knowledgable than you.

I don't conclude that. Clearly there are disagreements though.

We do not hide nor shy away from the fact that there may be differences of opinions between scholars, in fact it is quite likely that in this forum alone there are muslims who belong to different schools of thought. It doesn't make us see each other any differently.

The point is this: mockery of your religion is going to occur. That is just a plain fact, I'm afraid. I don't see any good reason why it should be prevented either. The question is how are you going to respond?

My question is, can you intellectually justify your support of the movement of spreading mockery? You can be as stupid as you want, you can behave however you want, I don't find it that hard to ignore stupidity. But since we are in this setting and you are seemingly setting up this movement as some kind of noble act, then I would like to see if whether or not you can justify what you are doing.

[Abz2000]

Peace be with you Abz,



This is not the type of spotlight a Muslim should want. Islam is being portrayed as a violent religion and Muslims as a dangerous subversive minority that will kill to get there way. If there is any fear, it is over violence that Muslims may cause and this is unfortunate because most Muslims don't condone these actions. Even Muslims who believe that in an *Islamic* state there should punishment for mocking Muhammad do not condone vigilantism in secular nations. Unfortunately these types of acts have a polarizing affect and the propaganda machine that is the Media will use it against Muslims. And believe me, as a Catholic I know all too well just how the Media bashes and distorts truths, so I completely sympathize with my Muslim friends who have been facing bombardment by the propaganda mills. The difference I would say is that Catholics do pose an *intellectual* threat to the secular West, being that we call back our people to faith in God and following the natural law which the secularists detest, and this is the type of "threat" you want to pose to the West, and not a threat of physical harm. So I disagree with you that this type of spotlight is good for the Muslim community or that it will help people approach Islam in accurate and non distorted way.

Peace to those who repent, submit, and believe in God and All of His Messengers.

The fact that they (pagan romans and secularist jews) saw Jesus pbuh as a fearsome threat and not you is sadly an indication that you skidded off the tracks somewhere.
Reading through the old and new testaments (Abraham, moses, jeremiah, daniel, David, Jesus etc) should have given you the understanding that whenever deviation turned to tyranny to the extent that mass complaints where going up, God sent a Messenger.
The Messenger would make the call, and God would create a clear split between truth and falsehood.
The enmity and desperation of God's enemies would then make the truth stand out in people's minds.
The call itself is a statement that can be dismissed as life goes on - it is the galvanization and the turbulence of chemicals within the brain that makes the sifting more effective as the problems that appear cannot go ignored.
People have to stop and think.
The reason why the secular/kafir/infidel leadership don't bother much with other ways of life is that they don't pose much of a threat to their hegemony.
Most of those who call themselves christians don't seem to be concerned about working actively to establish the Kingdom and Rule of God on earth as it is in heaven, so they just accept that Satan is the "god" of this world and slowly lose ground via the method of assimilation with falsehood and injustice on grounds of "practicality". So as prophesied by Jesus, the Kingdom of Heaven is given to a nation Bringing Forth the Fruits thereof.
The Muslims (as with Jesus and the money changers) know that we have a duty to establish God's Laws on earth whether it be with our lives or properties, and that such striving is taken into account by God and rewarded. And we also know that there isn't a problem in heaven, God's test is on earth.
The flesh and the spirit work together to establish the truth since the spirit flies off as soon as the flesh is dead.

I am assuring you that without the tribulation, hatred and bad press, the truth would have no significance.
It was from the hateful propaganda after the false flag event of 9/11 that people researched and came to Islam in droves, it wasn't a big issue in their minds until then.
The same happened with the Prophets, scan through the scriptures to understand this.

And here's an interesting article for you:

POLISH TV: ''Guerilla-killed Paris blasphemers of Christianity are not triumph of freedom of speech. It is disgusting pathology''

Publication time: 9 January 2015, 09:36*

According to Poland's news portal*W Polityce, Tomasz Terlikowski, head of the Polish mainstream TV station Telewizija Republika, called the people who attacked the Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo, guerillas (partyzantami).
He also referred to them as "fighters inspired by the belief in eternal life, which the Europeans no longer have (bojownikami wyposażonymi w wiarę w życie wieczne, której Europejczykom już brak)".
He recalled that the cleaned-up Parisian magazin published blasphemous cartoons against the Christian Holy Trinity.
Mr. Terlikowski in particular writes:"I just can not understand the people in the West which write today: "Je suis Charlie, I am Charlie" (name of the magazine, published by Paris blasphemers - KC)". You can not fall into such nonsense as to agree with their methods, and their system of values that are harmful to others.
World War III or IV surrounds all kinds of squaring the circle. Leftist and liberal circles were in favor of multiculturalism, which explains the presence of Muslims in Europe, and then they become the main victims of this presence. Some people in their community abandon "tolerance for the enemies of tolerance".
The conservatives, especially Christians, have to fight against such phenomena as Charlie Hebdo, together with the followers of Muhammad (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him - KC). But Muslims do not recognize us as partners. In extreme cases, we are also to be destroyed, along with liberals and leftists.
As a result, both worlds - conservative and leftist liberal - experience cognitive dissonance.
And there are no Christian commandos so far.
The leftists convened on Monday in a demonstration in defense of Islam, and on Tuesday against it.
Probably, the same people participated in both of them, indicating a split of their personalities.
Christians now killed in the Middle East a lot more people than those killed in Charlie Hebdo. I have to say that Charlie Hebdo is not a triumph of freedom of speech. It is a random disgusting pathology.
Muslims have a civilization much more complicated and possibly more effective. But after all, papacy lost its divisions. This is perhaps a consequence of the Gospel, but it is always possible to discuss details and limitations ..."

And please listen to this:

I hope you would agree that in the absence of all the false propaganda she'd previously heard about him (pbuh) she would have just thought "a good man called Muhammad who thinks he's a Messenger of God helped me with my shopping" and gone home and forgotten about him before you could say "how's your father's mother in law".
It was indeed the contrast that forced her to make a life changing decision.
Luckily for her, fate brought him to her, you however have tonnes of documents on the world wide web to sift through since you've now been forced to pay attention. :)

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Abz,

Peace to those who repent, submit, and believe in God and All of His Messengers.

The fact that they (pagan romans and secularist jews) saw Jesus pbuh as a fearsome threat and not you is sadly an indication that you skidded off the tracks somewhere.
Reading through the old and new testaments (Abraham, moses, jeremiah, daniel, David, Jesus etc) should have given you the understanding that whenever deviation turned to tyranny to the extent that mass complaints where going up, God sent a Messenger.
The Messenger would make the call, and God would create a clear split between truth and falsehood.
The enmity and desperation of God's enemies would then make the truth stand out in people's minds.
The call itself is a statement that can be dismissed as life goes on - it is the galvanization and the turbulence of chemicals within the brain that makes the sifting more effective as the problems that appear cannot go ignored.
People have to stop and think.
The reason why the secular/kafir/infidel leadership don't bother much with other ways of life is that they don't pose much of a threat to their hegemony.
Most of those who call themselves christians don't seem to be concerned about working actively to establish the Kingdom and Rule of God on earth as it is in heaven, so they just accept that Satan is the "god" of this world and slowly lose ground via the method of assimilation with falsehood and injustice on grounds of "practicality". So as prophesied by Jesus, the Kingdom of Heaven is given to a nation Bringing Forth the Fruits thereof.
The Muslims (as with Jesus and the money changers) know that we have a duty to establish God's Laws on earth whether it be with our lives or properties, and that such striving is taken into account by God and rewarded. And we also know that there isn't a problem in heaven, God's test is on earth.
The flesh and the spirit work together to establish the truth since the spirit flies off as soon as the flesh is dead.

Most the above is an attack on Christianity which I can't respond to since it may fall under comparative religion dialogue. Let me just say we have a different understanding of "the Kingdom" and the relationship between the City of God and the City of Man, which are in constant battle. If you want to understand our perspective just for the sake of knowing our perspective, I would suggest reading St Augustine's treatise on the matter, and I'll leave it at that.

Do you feel the Paris shooters were Islamically justified to commit the shootings? What is your opinion on the matter Abz?

I am assuring you that without the tribulation, hatred and bad press, the truth would have no significance.
It was from the hateful propaganda after the false flag event of 9/11 that people researched and came to Islam in droves, it wasn't a big issue in their minds until then.
The same happened with the Prophets, scan through the scriptures to understand this.

I'm just curious, what is the source for droves converting to Islam due to 9/11?

And please listen to this:

I hope you would agree that in the absence of all the false propaganda she'd previously heard about him (pbuh) she would have just thought "a good man called Muhammad who thinks he's a Messenger of God helped me with my shopping" and gone home and forgotten about him before you could say "how's your father's mother in law".
It was indeed the contrast that forced her to make a life changing decision.
Luckily for her, fate brought him to her, you however have tonnes of documents on the world wide web to sift through since you've now been forced to pay attention. :)

I don't watch videos, they're too time consuming, if there is a point there that you find interesting please summarize it in a post.

[LearnIslam]

There is no need to go on Islamic forums to tell us how to think. We follow the law of God. We certainly don't care of your opinions when you happy to use people for sex and then dump them as if they are meaningless and then say that you respect people more.

There has to be discussion because societies are multicultural. Every religion says it is the ultimate truth. So, do we all just stand by our conviction and hurt others?

That is why I asked, what does Islam say about making objection to an offense?

I don't think Charlie Hebdo did those cartoons to provoke anyone. It was certainly in bad taste. But remember France is not an Islamic country. We are coming back in full circle. The reason many people dislike Muslims or associate them with violence and terror is because there seems to be no tolerance for others' opinions, no place for dialogue.

Let's keep in mind that ALL faiths have been told they are the actual truth! So now view this from that point of view and see how intolerant you sound. I don't mean any disrespect on this post.

[ardianto]

That is why I asked, what does Islam say about making objection to an offense?

I don't think Charlie Hebdo did those cartoons to provoke anyone. It was certainly in bad taste. But remember France is not an Islamic country. We are coming back in full circle. The reason many people dislike Muslims or associate them with violence and terror is because there seems to be no tolerance for others' opinions, no place for dialogue.

Muslims may have different opinion regarding to making objection to an offense. Although France is not a Muslim country, France has enough much Muslim citizens. But how many Muslims in France who support violence as objection to Charlie Hebdo?. Don't forget, one policeman who killed in this attack is a Muslim.

[syed_z]

There has to be discussion because societies are multicultural. Every religion says it is the ultimate truth. So, do we all just stand by our conviction and hurt others?

That is why I asked, what does Islam say about making objection to an offense?

I don't think Charlie Hebdo did those cartoons to provoke anyone. It was certainly in bad taste. But remember France is not an Islamic country. We are coming back in full circle. The reason many people dislike Muslims or associate them with violence and terror is because there seems to be no tolerance for others' opinions, no place for dialogue.

Let's keep in mind that ALL faiths have been told they are the actual truth! So now view this from that point of view and see how intolerant you sound. I don't mean any disrespect on this post.

Peace be with you... I am a Muslim, alhamdulillah (Praise be to Al Mighty Allah (swt)) and I do not believe that it was justified to shoot the people at Charlie Hebdo, even though for a Muslim it is very detestable to even think about Prophet Muhammad (saw) being ridiculed in any way and the reason for that is because there is a Verse in the Quran Surah Taubah that says the following:

And if you ask them, they will surely say, "We were only conversing and playing." Say, "Is it Allah and His verses and His Messenger that you were mocking?" Make no excuse you have disbelieved after your belief. (9:65-66)

For a Muslim making fun or ridiculing Muhammad (saw) or any other Prophet, Jesus or Moses is ridiculing at the Mercy of Allah (swt) because it is His Mercy that He sends them as Guides for Mankind on Earth, and ridiculing at the Most Merciful of all those who show Mercy is ridiculous and disgusting.

Now as for what happened to Charlie is that I heard one of his previous interviews being aired on Euro News that he was once asked about his cartoons and he said "I live under French Law and not the Law of the Quran" .... and that I believe is fair enough explanation and it would be absolutely wrong to judge him according to the Law of Quran which is death for the person who ridicules at the Messenger of Allah (saw).

Since French law is the law of the land there, what the 2 shooters did, is obviously something not justified according to Muslim majority and you can simply compare it by using your logic that among all EU countries France has the largest Muslim population i.e. about 5 Million and if only 2 shooters get up from among them to kill Charlie Hebdo after almost 10 years of continuously publishing these ridiculous cartoons (it was Charlie Hebdo who published them immediately after 1st publication that took place in Denmark in 2005) then it should be plain and clear for Western Secularist and Christians that there are black sheep in every community and these sort of 'Kamikaze style' attacks are just the thought of an extremely few.

The International Union of Muslim Scholars have condemned this attack so please read the article, their view is adhered to by majority of Muslims:
http://iumsonline.org/en/default.asp...8860&menuID=45

Rather now I believe it is our brothers in humanity like yourselves Brother Sojourn and others who need to question their governments on some really importance points related to these attacks:

1. These 2 brothers were under the watch list of French Intelligence and other intelligence agencies and even no fly zone list, suspected as potential threats sincee 2005 and had connection to the Extremist organizations like ISIS and Al Qaeda, of whose incorrect ideology majority of Muslims do not adhere to, were allowed to roam freely in France and not be kept under surveillance. Because they did an attack which required training and weapons and if they were busy gathering that then intelligence authorities should've acted immediately but they failed to and so why?

2. Secondly the media reported there were three attackers and one of them was Hady Mourad who surrendered himself immediately after Media aired his ID picture because his identity card was found in the attackers car they had abandoned, why are they not bringing him on TV and he confesses he was part of it? Where is he? The rest of the news just kept focusing on the 2 shooters and then the story went from focusing on Charlie Hebdo attacks to the hostage crises in the supermarket which lost people's focus on the 3rd shooter.

3. Islamic Extremism is a result of Western Extremism i.e. attacking and sanctions on Muslim countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Somalia etc by Western NATO military alliance. For example ISIS formed was a result of intervention and arming groups in Syria to topple the Assad Govt and similar cases like Al Qaeda never existed in Iraq till US attacked and occupied.

Every action has a reaction, we all need to see how we're being played against our brothers in humanity from other faiths who are against all kinds of terrorism.

Hope you understand.

[czgibson]

Greetings Muhammad,

Greetings czgibson,

You have yourself admitted that freedom of speech is not absolute - it should not cause harm. Likewise, if people express their view that freedom of speech should be used responsibly rather than a means to provoke reaction, it in no way shows support for a particular action of murder. I have not seen anyone celebrating over a dead body here, so let us not pretend that is the case.

Fine. We interpret what we have read differently. But that's hardly surprising. After all, you and I have both read the Qur'an, and we differ in our interpretation of that too.

I found your comment about Muslims and wild animals particularly distasteful. This is not the kind of open and honest communication that leads to respect and understanding.

I wasn't the one who brought it up. It seemed like a crude comparison to me too.

Extremists are criminals exploiting Islam. This fact is clear when many, even a majority, of their victims are actually Muslims.

True.

Why is it acceptable to attack people for what they believe, but not for who they are?

Because people cannot change who they are. If a satirist thinks somebody has ludicrous or dangerous beliefs, though, they should have every right to attack or mock those beliefs.

Is this distinction truly important as far as preventing harm and maintaining security are concerned? It is rather a shame that a grey area could not exist when it comes to Muslims.

You may well be right.

Criticism is totally different than mockery and ridicule. Through dialogue we can achieve understanding and clarity. But mockery is one-sided and devoid of any value.

Do you see no value at all in satire?

Even as a non-Muslim, you can easily read about the multitude of examples of the Prophet's :saws: mercy and tolerance. You can read about Islam's prohibition on lying, cheating and causing harm to others. Yet there are many Muslims that do not follow these teachings, whether due to ignorance or otherwise. Do you still deny the distinction between the teachings of Islam and what some adherents practice?

I don't deny the distinction; I merely say it is a cheap distinction that relies on your prior belief and does nothing to advance the discussion. As a materialist, I contend that Islam is no more perfect than the people who created it.

The Enlightenment was exactly what I had in mind when replying to your comment. 'Enlightenment' seems to suggest that religion is backward and godlessness is the way forward. The resulting immorality and degradation of principles is manifest today.

What evidence do you have that public morals are at a lower standard today than before the Enlightenment?

But from Islamic history, we know of a Golden Age when Muslims were very educated and at the forefront of scientific discovery, whose scholarly works are still referenced today. I do not recall any of them feeling the need to remove themselves from religion.

During the (undoubtedly impressive) Islamic Golden Age, there were no compelling reasons to abandon religion. As far as the best minds of the time knew, religion might well be a good explanation of the universe.

The fact is that any misguided individual looking to cause trouble does not have to look far. The teachings of any religion or ideology can be distorted when one wishes to cause trouble.

Yes. This is one reason why ideologies and religions that claim to be total systems of life are so dangerous. I am glad you can see this.

We even see the 'war on terror' being used to justify the massacre of whole countries.

I agree that it has been misdirected and badly managed.

This much is clear, that ridiculing Islam is neither the way to dispel the myth that it is 'dangerous' nor to present its true teachings.

Well that is so obvious it hardly needs pointing out. The purpose of ridiculing Islam is normally to show that its teachings are false and / or dangerous. If you would like to defend Islam against these charges, then I am sure you are well able to do so. What worries me is that far too many people who call themselves Muslims do not appear to be able to face ridicule or criticism without resorting to anger and sometimes outright violence.

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings Hulk,

If you read what I said properly, you will that I was making a general statement and not specifically mentioning muslims. Nevertheless, it's a red herring on your part. I've pointed out the error in your careless statement.

We're discussing an atrocity committed by people calling themselves Muslims. That is the topic of the thread, isn't it?

The responsibility of reporting dangerous individuals to the authority lies on everyone in the community regardless of their religious beliefs.

True.

It's plain stupidity to say that a person is responsible for someone else's actions just because they happen to be of the same religion.

But I'm sure Muslims would at least want to help uphold the law of the land within their own communities. Especially in areas where integration into wider society has been limited.

Yet, initially your conclusion was based on the actions of people who claim to be following the Quran. Now your conclusion is based on you having read the Quran? Are we supposed to just take your word for it? That when you read the Quran you understood it completely as it should be understood? Your statements beg a lot of questions.

My conviction that the Qur'an is a false and dangerous book has always been based on my reading of it. I even made a thread about it here some years ago before you joined the forum which you can read if you can find it. I've tried, but I'm not sure the forum history goes back that far. It was called something like "An atheist reads the Qur'an".

Also, nobody has a perfect understanding of the Qur'an. Such a thing is impossible. Consider the muqatta'at, for example.

Ah, the typical atheist narrative of "history of religion". It's really just a strawman fallacy. "You believe in God because you don't know how these things work, now we are smarter and know how things work, therefore your belief in God is no longer necessary.".

If religious authorities could be wrong about so many things in the past, what reason is there to trust them now?

If someone uses a cookbook wrongly and the dish tastes bad, the responsibility lies on the person who cooked the dish, not the cookbook itself. This is common sense.

We're not talking about a meal tasting bad, we're talking about innocent people ending up dead.

Through knowledge. For starters, you can ask those who are more knowledgable than you.

But what if I'm an idiot? How will I decide who is knowledgable then?

My question is, can you intellectually justify your support of the movement of spreading mockery? You can be as stupid as you want, you can behave however you want, I don't find it that hard to ignore stupidity. But since we are in this setting and you are seemingly setting up this movement as some kind of noble act, then I would like to see if whether or not you can justify what you are doing.

I am not principally devoted to spreading mockery, and, for what it's worth, I don't have a particularly high opinion of the cartoons that are at the heart of this issue. The ones I've seen are not very subtle or clever, it seems to me, and not even well drawn. If I was an editor I don't think I would have published them, mainly because I think satire can be done far more effectively than that.

But I see no reason to ban them.

Suppose the extremists get their way, and French law moves to ban mockery of Islam. What then? All the other religions will press for the same laws (as would only be fair). What then? How about some other targets of satire who decide they don't particularly like being ridiculed? Maybe political leaders would prefer it if the media was prevented by law from mocking them?

I live in a country where people used to get burned at the stake for the crime of possessing a Bible in English. There are countries in the world today where criticism of religion is effectively punishable by death. The same is true in some countries of criticism of the political establishment. Perhaps you would prefer to live in North Korea? They take a wholeheartedly firm line against mockery over there.

I am defending free speech, and I believe that is a noble cause. Any erosion of it ought to be met with firm resistance by people who consider themselves members of a free society.

Peace

[Muhammad]

Greetings czgibson,

Fine. We interpret what we have read differently. But that's hardly surprising. After all, you and I have both read the Qur'an, and we differ in our interpretation of that too.

In which case, when in doubt, it's better to ask and clarify rather than jump to conclusions.

I wasn't the one who brought it up. It seemed like a crude comparison to me too.

I think you are intelligent enough to realise it was not meant in that way. I thought you might apologise but perhaps it was too much to expect.

Because people cannot change who they are. If a satirist thinks somebody has ludicrous or dangerous beliefs, though, they should have every right to attack or mock those beliefs.

In any case it goes to show that freedom of speech is not so free after all and that inevitably there is a degree of hypocrisy when people decide it is acceptable to mock some but not others.

Do you see no value at all in satire?

It may well serve a role when used in the appropriate situation. As sister MuslimInshallah said, 'mockery and jeering of the powerful towards the weak is not satire. It is bullying.'

I don't deny the distinction; I merely say it is a cheap distinction that relies on your prior belief and does nothing to advance the discussion. As a materialist, I contend that Islam is no more perfect than the people who created it.

This has nothing to do with prior conviction in Islam's truth. Even if you believe Islam to be false, you can still appreciate the disparity between what the Qur'an and Sunnah teach and what certain people are doing. The distinction is important because the blame must be placed where it belongs - on the bad driver and not the car.

What evidence do you have that public morals are at a lower standard today than before the Enlightenment?

There is a clear rise in many social vices - killing, drugs, adultery etc.

During the (undoubtedly impressive) Islamic Golden Age, there were no compelling reasons to abandon religion. As far as the best minds of the time knew, religion might well be a good explanation of the universe.

If they simply stopped there, their works and advancements would not have laid the groundwork for much of what we know today. And it is argued that a central aspect of their inspiration and transform was Islam itself. You may choose to ignore this, but the matter has been researched and there are a number of online materials (such as: http://www.muslimheritage.com/articl...slamic-science).

Yes. This is one reason why ideologies and religions that claim to be total systems of life are so dangerous. I am glad you can see this.

Then you will be disappointed to learn that is not what I said. You are too eager to see Islam as a dangerous way of life. If you say the war on terror was 'misdirected and badly managed', why not accept that Islam can be misused?

Well that is so obvious it hardly needs pointing out. The purpose of ridiculing Islam is normally to show that its teachings are false and / or dangerous.

So for someone who wishes to understand the correct teachings of Islam and what it means to return to them, they would do better to support fair study of Islam as opposed to mindless ridicule.

What worries me is that far too many people who call themselves Muslims do not appear to be able to face ridicule or criticism without resorting to anger and sometimes outright violence.

This is a universal human weakness, not only belonging to Muslims.

[syed_z]

One of the Cops killed while protecting Charlie Hebdo was a Muslim, Ahmed Merabat and please read what his family has to say:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-9970046.html

Surprisingly his name bears the resemblance of our beloved Prophet's name i.e. Ahmad.

Another Man is a Hero and is a Muslim at the supermarket during hostage taking who helped saved lives by the grace of Allah (swt), of several customers. Bathily, a 24-year-old shop assistant, is originally from the West African country of Mali.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01...abeled-hero---

[Abz2000]

Peace be with you Abz,



Most the above is an attack on Christianity which I can't respond to since it may fall under comparative religion dialogue. Let me just say we have a different understanding of "the Kingdom" and the relationship between the City of God and the City of Man, which are in constant battle. If you want to understand our perspective just for the sake of knowing our perspective, I would suggest reading St Augustine's treatise on the matter, and I'll leave it at that.

You know that it wasn't an attack but a sincere response to your advice, and that it was not like the abusive and slanderous cartoons, nor a blind attack in the guise of intellectual criticism similar to the comments of pro-zionists who pretend to criticize islam on a subject while being ignorant of / keeping*mum about the very same thing which is in the Bible.

Do you feel the Paris shooters were Islamically justified to commit the shootings? What is your opinion on the matter Abz?

Ya tryina tempt me or wot :) ?
Show me a denarius and see whose inscription is on it first.

First of i can't even pretend to be certain of whether it was another false flag aimed to achieve controversial policies - since even more complicated false flags are well documented - or a sincere effort in order to defend the truth.

If it was a false flag the it was reprehensible and deceitful - an act of cowards unwilling to show their true colours.
If it was a sincere act by people who were enraged at the abuses Muslims have to endure in france and the insults on the sacred honour of God's Messengers and triggered by the bombing of innocents in syria and elsewhere - Then suffice it to be said that i would rejoice at the repentance, and in the absence of repentance - punishment of any who would dare to portray my mother, wife or sister in a lewd fashion, drawing a mocking cartoon of your mother being pushed naked in a wheelchair is like an invitation to get clapped.
And the Messengers of God are dearer to us than our own mothers and fathers.

I'm just curious, what is the source for droves converting to Islam due to 9/11?

Ummm.... The surveys and stats are there for any who bother to research, along with the news reports and direct testimonies of multiple mosque leaders who described a phenominal increase in the weeks and months after.

You want some of the thousands out there?
OK.

CNN NEWS : Million of Americans converted to ISLAM After 9/11 ...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5xs0N3yEKQo

Conversion To Islam One Result Of Post-9/11 Curiosity

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_935572.html

NYDAILYNEWS
Number of Muslims in the U.S. doubles since 9/11*
MEGHAN NEAL2012, 3 May, 12:49 PM

A new survey reveals the dramatically changing face of religion in America, with the number of Muslims in the U.S. soaring 67% in the decade since the 9/11 attacks.
.... the burst of anti-Islam sentiment after the 9/11 attacks could have done more to grow the religion's presence in the U.S. than slow it. Those on the fence about converting to Islam may have decided to do so on principle."Persecution is sometimes good for a religious group — in the sense of being able to attract more followers, for some reason," Jones said. "Rarely is opposition a very effective tool in stopping the growth of a movement."....
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/nation....1071895#bmb=1


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r5O8kqc-l9c

Danish Muslim Convert: Thousands of Danish Converting - YouTube



Indeed, those who brought forth the slander are a gang among you.
Do not think it bad for you; rather it is good for you.
For every person among them is what [punishment] he has earned from the sin, and he who took upon himself the greater portion thereof - for him is a great punishment.

Why, when you heard it, did not the believing men and believing women think good of one another and say, "This is an obvious falsehood"?
Quran, The Light, Chapter 24, Verses 11-12

I don't watch videos, they're too time consuming, if there is a point there that you find interesting please summarize it in a post.

It was indeed alluded to in the text beneath the embedded video.

Peace to those who research sincerely, repent, accept all of God's Messengers and submit to God's Laws.

[confused43]

wow that is simply amazing what you wrote , absolutely amazing the things i understand now from reading that that you have just written , i came to the forum to try and understand what is happening in the world around us today , i fear that for which i do not no or that i do not understand , but i wish to understand it :confused::confused::confused:

[Futuwwa]

It's not up to me, it's up to the law. The law is imperfect, but as it happens, I think most of the time the law in the UK strikes a good balance between security and freedom of speech.

You're moving the goalposts to escape from a position you previously expressed. In your last post, you said it was right for the law to simultaneously prohibit cartoons that ridicule holocaust victims and protect demeaning cartoons of Muhammed. Care to continue where you left, back that position up or forfeit?

If Muslims want to live in the UK, then yes, they should obey the law of the land.

Funny how that works, everyone else has a civil right to engage in civil discourse about what the law should be and try to change it through the democratic process, but Muslims should just accept the law of the land as-is or gtfo.

[czgibson]

Greetings Futuwwa,

You're moving the goalposts to escape from a position you previously expressed. In your last post, you said it was right for the law to simultaneously prohibit cartoons that ridicule holocaust victims and protect demeaning cartoons of Muhammed. Care to continue where you left, back that position up or forfeit?

Why do you think I've moved the goalposts? I stand by what I've said.

Funny how that works, everyone else has a civil right to engage in civil discourse about what the law should be and try to change it through the democratic process, but Muslims should just accept the law of the land as-is or gtfo.

Where have I denied that Muslims have a right to participate in the democratic process?

Peace

[Abz2000]

*Originally Posted by*czgibson*If Muslims want to live in the UK, then yes, they should obey the law of the land.

The Law of the Land and Sea, the Heavans and Earth and of All that exists is for Almighty God to legislate and for people to obey.
The UK politicians are in violation of that Law.

Ironic how czgibson didn't see it that way when the Muslims demanded that Yazeedi fireworshippers submit to the Law of the land (which is for God) and which they gave blood to help establish and not make up their own unjust laws after american infidel soldiers murdered them for ten years despite iraq having been a secular state in alliance with the U.S and when french infidel soldiers went and bombed hundreds of innocent civilians under the direction of french infidel politicians (who had banned the niqab and public prayer) "to protect the yazeedis' freedom of religion".

Cast out da mote that is in your own eye ya hypocrites. Ya compass land and sea to make one proselyte to infidelity and when you've deceived him into believing he's free you try and make him more a child of Satan than yourselves, how can you escape dam&ation?
REPENT ye generation of vipers!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The Law of the Land and Sea, the Heavans and Earth and of All that exists is for Almighty God to legislate and for people to obey.
The UK politicians are in violation of that Law.

Ironic how czgibson didn't see it that way when the Muslims demanded that Yazeedi fireworshippers submit to the Law of the land (which is for God) and which they gave blood to help establish and not make up their own unjust laws after american infidel soldiers murdered them for ten years despite iraq having been a secular state in alliance with the U.S and when french infidel soldiers went and bombed hundreds of innocent civilians under the direction of french infidel politicians (who had banned the niqab and public prayer) "to protect the yazeedis' freedom of religion".

Cast out da mote that is in your own eye ya hypocrites. Ya compass land and sea to make one proselyte to infidelity and when you've deceived him into believing he's free you try and make him more a child of Satan than yourselves, how can you escape dam&ation?
REPENT ye generation of vipers!

What on earth are you babbling about?

Peace

[Abz2000]

Where have I denied that Muslims have a right to participate in the democratic process

You mean that process where the financiers select their prospective puppets and then offer them a media stage and chance to debate, and whoever gets to create/pacify/convince by lying baldfacedly to the biggest gang gets the position of "right honourable puppet" for an hour with the beast?

[czgibson]

Greetings Abz,

Are you some sort of comedian?

Peace

[Abz2000]

why? are your nine hundred "gods" now tongue tied?

reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pInA...ature=youtu.be

[Pygoscelis]

Greetings,

The Paris shootings are another sad example of behaviour that harms non-Muslims and Muslims alike. I like to check in to this forum at times like this to see how the issue is being discussed.

As usual, there's lots of wrong-headed bleating that ignores the central issue:

Anyone who thinks that killing is preferable to satire urgently needs to reassess their moral priorities.

This writer was on the verge of getting the point:



Yes - exactly. If you can't put up with your religion being mocked, then don't live in a secular country.

I'm not saying I believe religion should always be mocked, but many people in secular countries do. They believe religion as a whole is worthy of nothing other than contempt and ridicule. That is simply a fact, and if you can't tolerate that, and perhaps even "laugh it off", then live somewhere else.

In the nearly ten years I've been a member of this forum, I've learned a lot about Islam. I've met some interesting people, and I've almost learned to see things from a Muslim point of view - certainly more than most of my friends can.

One thing that seems very clear to me is that Islam urgently needs a central living authority. Muslims call for a Caliphate, and I think they're right. Not covering the entire world - that will never happen - but substantial enough to command the respect of Muslims worldwide.

Until this living authority exists, then terrorists can carry on giving Islam a bad name by listening to the scholars who support them, and ignoring the scholars who condemn them. Islam is a religion that is in a huge mess at the moment, and the sooner it is re-organised (or even Reformed - how about that for an idea?) the better it will be for planet Earth as a whole.

Peace

Great to see you czgibson, and very well said.

If you can't handle your religion or worldview being criticized, mocked, etc, without reacting violently, you really should stay out of countries with freedom of speech, and moreso, we should keep you out.

That being said, I saw a lot of muslims condemning what happened in Paris, more than I saw after previous such "islamic extremist" attacks. There were plenty of muslims in the Jew Suis Charlie movement and they really did make it a question in many a person's mind of which Islam is the true Islam, instead of the same people leaping to the anti-muslim conclusion (such as post 9/11). It is progress good to see.

[Pygoscelis]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;


I am a Christian, and I found those cartoons highly offensive. Clearly there are millions of Muslims who have also found those cartoons offensive, but they have not killed anyone. Do you seriously want to offend all those millions of Muslims yet again, because of what four individuals have done?

You talk about religious bullying, but if every paper published those cartoons again, this might be considered to be bullying by the secular community. Killing is wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right. As I understand, four gunmen/women have died, who else needs to be punished for their actions.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

I would normally agree, that such cartoons are in bad taste and should be discouraged. But, when violence is being used to threaten and bully the cartoonists, I find it even more important to hoist them up. It shows that we will not be intimidated. And, come on, these are cartoons. People need to grow a thicker skin.

[Hulk]

We're discussing an atrocity committed by people calling themselves Muslims. That is the topic of the thread, isn't it?

I used an analogy to point out the fallacy in your line of reasoning. Are you so simple that you can't comprehend that? I pointed out the errors in your argument by using the same form but with different subjects. Concluding that I liken muslims to wild animals based on that is a sure sign of lack of intelligence.

True.

But I'm sure Muslims would at least want to help uphold the law of the land within their own communities. Especially in areas where integration into wider society has been limited.

As I have already mentioned, the responsibility lies upon everyone in the community regardless of their religious beliefs. To say that muslims are responsible (whether directly or indirectly) for bad actions done by other people who happen to share the same faith as them is stupid.

My conviction that the Qur'an is a false and dangerous book has always been based on my reading of it. I even made a thread about it here some years ago before you joined the forum which you can read if you can find it. I've tried, but I'm not sure the forum history goes back that far. It was called something like "An atheist reads the Qur'an".

Also, nobody has a perfect understanding of the Qur'an. Such a thing is impossible. Consider the muqatta'at, for example.

So do you agree that it would be wrong to judge Islam based on the actions of those who claim to practice it?

We're not talking about a meal tasting bad, we're talking about innocent people ending up dead.

Once again, you missed the point. Just because I use an analogy to point out an error in your line of reasoning doesn't necessarily mean I'm equating the subjects. So now you're going to say I liken muslims to chefs? I thought atheists pride themselves in being rational.

But what if I'm an idiot? How will I decide who is knowledgable then?

If you're an idiot then you'd probably do idiotic things, and it would be hard to reason with you since you're an idiot.

I am not principally devoted to spreading mockery, and, for what it's worth, I don't have a particularly high opinion of the cartoons that are at the heart of this issue. The ones I've seen are not very subtle or clever, it seems to me, and not even well drawn. If I was an editor I don't think I would have published them, mainly because I think satire can be done far more effectively than that.

But I see no reason to ban them.

Suppose the extremists get their way, and French law moves to ban mockery of Islam. What then? All the other religions will press for the same laws (as would only be fair). What then? How about some other targets of satire who decide they don't particularly like being ridiculed? Maybe political leaders would prefer it if the media was prevented by law from mocking them?

I live in a country where people used to get burned at the stake for the crime of possessing a Bible in English. There are countries in the world today where criticism of religion is effectively punishable by death. The same is true in some countries of criticism of the political establishment. Perhaps you would prefer to live in North Korea? They take a wholeheartedly firm line against mockery over there.

I am defending free speech, and I believe that is a noble cause. Any erosion of it ought to be met with firm resistance by people who consider themselves members of a free society.

So according to your reasoning just because someone holds the opinion that those things should be banned then they are an extremist?
You're committing a slippery slope fallacy in an attempt to defend your position. I'd explain to you what that means but you'd probably say I'm equating one thing with another.

So your idea of defending free speech is to spread a specific kind of mockery?

"A cartoonist is killed for making offensive images and making an extremist angry. I want to defend free speech and show my support for it. Therefore I should spread these specific offensive images."

Do you see the stupidity in that?

It's risky but I'll try to use an example to explain.

"A person is killed for playing techno music. I want to defend the idea that people have the right to listen to whatever music genre they want. Therefore I should spread techno music around."

I know you're probably very tempted to say "Oh you're saying images mocking islam is like techno!". No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm using the same line of reasoning/form of argument to show the error in it.

[Pygoscelis]

Never the less, these cartoons are offensive. I heard on Sky news today that their journalists have been told not to show any of these cartoons in their coverage, but why? Are they afraid of retaliation, or do they recognize the cartoons might offend, and they do not need or want to offend anyone. I hope it is the later reason.

But do you really believe it is the latter reason? Really? I can almost almost guarantee you it isn't.

But we know that not all speech is free, 'pleb' caused serious problems, and I don't personally find it that offensive. Jeremy Clarkson was in serious trouble for using the 'n' word; and it was edited out of the show.

He was chastised. I don't think he was murdered by black people. Similarly, a few years back an artist suspended a cross in urine and put it on display as art. I don't think he was murdered by Christians. Islam has a special group of thin-skinned and violent people claiming to act in its name. This is a problem for both Islam's reputation, the majority of muslims who just want to live in peace and not be harassed and presumed dangerous, and for the world as a whole when it comes to how we talk about Islam.

[Pygoscelis]

If it was a sincere act by people who were enraged at the abuses Muslims have to endure in france and the insults on the sacred honour of God's Messengers and triggered by the bombing of innocents in syria and elsewhere - Then suffice it to be said that i would rejoice at the repentance, and in the absence of repentance - punishment of any who would dare to portray my mother, wife or sister in a lewd fashion, drawing a mocking cartoon of your mother being pushed naked in a wheelchair is like an invitation to get clapped.
And the Messengers of God are dearer to us than our own mothers and fathers.

You didn't completely answer the question. Say this is not a false flag operation, and this was actually done by some guys offended by the cartoons, insulted in the ways you wrote above. Do you or do you not endorse what they did? Do you or do you not condemn them? Is what they did good or bad? Is it right or wrong?

[Abz2000]

I would normally agree, that such cartoons are in bad taste and should be discouraged. But, when violence is being used to threaten and bully the cartoonists, I find it even more important to hoist them up. It shows that we will not be intimidated. And, come on, these are cartoons. People need to grow a thicker skin.

you seem to have conveniently ignored the parable, would you accept it if you were a jew in 1940 germany and it was a picture of your mum stark naked being pushed in a wheelchair by german nazi?
and if at first you protested and the next door neighbour or local councillor said he wouldn't be intimidated by you - an extremist - and made a thousand copies and a thousand more "members of the party" walked about with such a picture in public would you say he was just expressing free speech or being abusive and disgusting in an attempt get a reaction by driving you to fury and making you flip? or would you say, it's ok, they're just trying to pi*s me off and get a reaction with my mum's naked picture so i will just laugh and not go kamikazee.\
would you be able to look your mum in the face again?

[Abz2000]

is it that ye believe in a part and disbelieve a part?
here's the text of her reply to my question - notice that she steered around the original question - not out of concern for two faced injustice but because it musta made her red faced.

Originally Posted by Sojourn

you feel the Paris shooters were Islamically justified to commit the shootings? What is your opinion on the matter Abz?

my reply:

Ya tryina tempt me or wot :) ?
Show me a denarius and see whose inscription is on it first.

First of i can't even pretend to be certain of whether it was another false flag aimed to achieve controversial policies - since even more complicated false flags are well documented - or a sincere effort in order to defend the truth.

If it was a false flag the it was reprehensible and deceitful - an act of cowards unwilling to show their true colours.
If it was a sincere act by people who were enraged at the abuses Muslims have to endure in france and the insults on the sacred honour of God's Messengers and triggered by the bombing of innocents in syria and elsewhere - Then suffice it to be said that i would rejoice at the repentance, and in the absence of repentance - punishment of any who would dare to portray my mother, wife or sister in a lewd fashion, drawing a mocking cartoon of your mother being pushed naked in a wheelchair is like an invitation to get clapped.
And the Messengers of God are dearer to us than our own mothers and fathers.

she claims to be a christian, so i will show her a mirror.

\1One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him.
\2“Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”

3He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me:
4John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

5They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’
6But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

7So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

8Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”


they would probably have gotten a clear reply if it was of any use, but it was obvious they knew the answer to the question they were asking and were trolling. why become prey to trolls?


\20Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. \
They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor.
\21So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.
\22Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

23He saw through their duplicity and said to them,
24“Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.
25He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
26They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

Matthew 22:
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.
16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, (FLATTERY) “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are.
17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax^a to Caesar or not?”

18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?
19Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius,
20and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21“Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away

i don't know if it was a false flag or not, but i have noticed the U.S government in the past used false flags before a controversial invasion - and they used the false flag to "befriend" the majority and still the vocal minority, i also notice that this has happened at a time when the governments of kufr are about to face a backlash for a very controversial plan. Though God knows the truth.
in the time of mahdi and dajjal, it is better to evaluate both scenarios.


both parables are from luke 20
when history repeats ........ do we notice....

[InToTheRain]

Salam,

I have expressed before that there are extremists on both sides; Mulims and Non-Muslims. There are people who want to bridge the devide between people so that we can live, in harmony, in a civilised manner; the best amongst them are those that forego their own luxury for the benefit of the less privelaged. These are noble and civilized people.

And there are amongst us those that will use every nuance available within the laws they are compelled to abide by in order to sow discord amongst men which has far reaching deestructive consequences. From what I have read/heard charlie hebdon undoubtedly falls in this category; the uncivilized.

Some points:

1) To mock or make fun of the works of any of the beloved Prophets and Massengers of God is an abhorrent practice. I do not think it's "tragic" when an individual does this and dies as a result of it. What is tragic are the innocent bystanders that suffer as a result of the actions of the extremists on both ends.


2) Muslims must abide by the laws of the land or migrate if they can't. We can't kill people like thugs. Even in Pakistan when a man insulted the Prophet (SAW) he was arrested and proper judicial process followed. It was later found that the men was clinically insane as he claimed he himself was a Prophet so he was later released. However the extreme fringes amongst the Muslims still killed him later on. I would say this death was tragic as the men mentally disturbed and should've been helped. However charlie hebdon was not clinically insane nor known to have any regrets for mocking the Massengers of God. I Pray for God to guide such people and if they do not accept His guidance they should be stopped like all oppressors.

3) Though the world grows increasingly uncivilized I still shudder to think that "amusement" is accepted reason to insult or offend others...

4) If a part of someones profession is insulting religious minorities in their country then that person should be seen as a coward and we should be ashamed of such individuals. For example if my brother were to insult Hindus in my country (A religious minority), and did it as part of his profession, I wouldn't be proud of him; and if he were to die as a result of their wrath I wouldn't be surprised. Islam doesn't allow us freedom to insult other religions so ultimately I would see him as a fool and a bully.

5) "Freedom of Speech" appears to be synonymous with "freedom to incite hatred" and it shouldn't be. I want a laws in place to stop cowards from exploiting this law to insult minorities. I want laws in place which prevent mockery of all religions and not just Islam; as this is closer in line with my religious beliefs. What is classified as mockery should be designated to denominations of that religions leaders and not to a partisan of the offender.

6) Finally I believe the essence of freedom of speech is to speak against the powers that be if they step out of line and not for the powers that be to have an excuse to insult the minority for their amusement. And as such charlie hebdon is no champion of free speech, he is an oppressor and the ones he mocked "for amusement" were the real champions of freedom of speech this being the Prophets and Massengers of God (PBUT); All of whom suffered greatly as a result of speaking against the authorities and their ill practices. They did it out of love for God and His Creation. To have their work besmirched in any way is amongst the greatest sins.

In the spirit of creating bridges amongst the schism.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Have you apologised yet?

Or better still have you condemned? Never mind what you are condemning, just condemn away because you are Muslim and you are to blame. This is the painful narrative and the very dangerous undertone that is now apparent and clear for all to see after recent events in France.

The backlash from the latest incident blamed on Islam and Muslims seems in many ways stronger than previous incidents. The clamour for an apology seems to have grown stronger and resonates with the entire society and social groups.

But why should Muslims apologise? Should the entire “community” of Muslims be held responsible for the actions of a few people? Rupert Murdoch seems to think so and he is by no means alone. Never mind the crude definition of “community”. It may come as a surprise to many bigoted Western commentators but Muslims are diverse. They don’t all share the same views and beliefs and have major differences on a variety of issues. Yet funnily enough, this requirement to apologise rarely applies to other “communities”.

Should all Christians apologise for the several cases of child abuse by priests throughout the 70s and 80s? Should all journalists apologise for the phone hacking scandal? Perhaps all professional football players should apologise for Ched Evans’ rape conviction? In fact, since we are making broad generalisations, why shouldn’t all men apologise for Ched Evans?

But “Ah”, the bigoted commentator retorts. The Charlie Hebdo shootings was done in the name of Muhammad (peace be upon him) – it’s done in “your” name, so an apology is needed to clarify “your” position and that of Islam in general.

Yes, on face value, this appears to make the case stronger. However, such generalisations are intended to disarm Muslims and make them feel defensive. Sweeping generalisations should often be viewed with skepticism due to the fact that they can mislead. At least they should be viewed with scrutiny so as to prove that the general principle is true.

The fact in this case is that nobody actually knows the exact motivations of the attackers – there are only unverified statements from the scene of the attack. The likelihood is that the attackers belong to an underclass of North African Muslims living in shocking conditions (more on this later) so motivations are often blurred and unclear.

Even if a case could be made, does that prove anything? Does it mean the rest of us have to apologise as well. It is similar to expecting an apology from the British people for the MP Expenses scandal. After all, MPs speak on behalf of the British public.

The reality is the Muslims have nothing to apologise for. We should be clear about that and raise our heads up high and repeat it; deliberately, slowly and with strength.

In fact, Muslims must not apologise or condemn. Not due to misplaced arrogance or lack of compassion but for altogether different reasons. This doesn’t mean we agree with actions committed by others and that we hate all Westerners either.

At its most fundamental level an apology glosses over major injustices that have happened against Muslims. Charlie Hebdo is hardly a neutral balanced publication. It has been provoking Muslims and other minorities for years. Those insisting on supporting the Je Suis Charlie (I am Charlie) campaign should ask themselves if this includes the cowardly edition that mocked the brave Muslims massacred by Egypt’s General Sisi after a rally (imagine the response if Muslim satirists responded by mocking the Charlie Hebdo dead) as well as the disturbing edition that mocked the victims of rape apparently committed by Boko Haram in Nigeria.

But at a deeper level it totally ignores France’s treatment of its Muslim minority. Banning hijab, arresting those that pray the morning prayers at the Mosque, restricting working in public sector jobs for practicing Muslims, denial of social security, lack of employment and demonising them to such a state that parallels to Hitler’s treatment of Jews can be drawn. It is as if these attacks are the start of the story, while the real backstory is conveniently glossed over.

However, there are 3 very clear, practical reasons why Muslims should not apologise.

Firstly, an apology is an admission of guilt, which presupposes that we have done something wrong. This is a major problem since it implies that Islam caused atrocities to occur and this is something that we simply cannot accept. It is our responsibility and obligation to clarify our position on this and refute the causal link.

Secondly, it then follows that either you change aspects of your beliefs to conform to the so-called “correct” values such as freedom of expression or leave them totally. Let us be clear, the attacks on Islam in light of Charlie Hebdo by the likes of Douglas Murray are designed to give credence to a set of apologists who have government-funded institutions designed to make Muslims question their beliefs. At worst Muslims feel they need to be quiet while others speak for them and at worst Muslims start to change sacrosanct values.

Thirdly, it is used as a justification for a variety of other measures against Muslims. Both 9/11 and 7/7 precipitated a raft of legislation targeting Muslims, ironically curtailing their right to criticise government foreign policy, as well as a host of quite targeted measures such as “stop and search” against them. There is very little evidence that these measures have stopped any attacks and they have a low success rate. Only the naïve would think these laws would be used solely against Muslims.

Not only should we explain and clarify our position, we should ensure that those that speak for us don’t apologise for us either.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/have-you-apologised-yet

[سيف الله]

Salaam

And another update

Terrorism is not terrorism when a much more severe terrorist attack is carried out by those who are Righteous by virtue of their power

THE WORLD reacted with horror to the murderous attack on the French satirical journal Charlie Hebdo. In the New York Times, veteran Europe correspondent Steven Erlanger graphically described the immediate aftermath, what many call France’s 9/11, as “a day of sirens, helicopters in the air, frantic news bulletins; of police cordons and anxious crowds; of young children led away from schools to safety.

It was a day, like the previous two, of blood and horror in and around Paris.” The enormous outcry worldwide was accompanied by reflection about the deeper roots of the atrocity. “Many Perceive a Clash of Civilizations,” a New York Times headline read.

The reaction of horror and revulsion about the crime is justified, as is the search for deeper roots, as long as we keep some principles firmly in mind. The reaction should be completely independent of what thinks about this journal and what it produces.

The passionate and ubiquitous chants “I am Charlie,” and the like, should not be meant to indicate, even hint at, any association with the journal, at least in the context of defense of freedom of speech. Rather, they should express defense of the right of free expression whatever one thinks of the contents, even if they are regarded as hateful and depraved.

And the chants should also express condemnation for violence and terror. The head of Israel’s Labor Party and the main challenger for the upcoming elections in Israel, Isaac Herzog, is quite right when he says that “Terrorism is terrorism. There’s no two ways about it.”

He is also right to say that “All the nations that seek peace and freedom [face] an enormous challenge” from murderous terrorism – putting aside his predictably selective interpretation of the challenge.

Erlanger vividly describes the scene of horror. He quotes one surviving journalist as saying that “Everything crashed. There was no way out. There was smoke everywhere. It was terrible. People were screaming. It was like a nightmare.” Another surviving journalist reported a “huge detonation, and everything went completely dark.”

The scene, Erlanger reported, “was an increasingly familiar one of smashed glass, broken walls, twisted timbers, scorched paint and emotional devastation.” At least 10 people were reported at once to have died in the explosion, with 20 missing, “presumably buried in the rubble.”

These quotes, as the indefatigable David Peterson reminds us, are not, however, from January 2015. Rather, they are from a story of Erlanger’s on April 24 1999, which made it only to page 6 of the New York Times, not reaching the significance of the Charlie Hebdo attack. Erlanger was reporting on the NATO (meaning US) “missile attack on Serbian state television headquarters” that “knocked Radio Television Serbia off the air.”

There was an official justification. “NATO and American officials defended the attack,” Erlanger reports, “as an effort to undermine the regime of President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia.” Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon told a briefing in Washington that “Serb TV is as much a part of Milosevic's murder machine as his military is,” hence a legitimate target of attack.

The Yugoslavian government said that “The entire nation is with our President, Slobodan Milosevic,” Erlanger reports, adding that “How the Government knows that with such precision was not clear.”

No such sardonic comments are in order when we read that France mourns the dead and the world is outraged by the atrocity. There need also be no inquiry into the deeper roots, no profound questions about who stands for civilization, and who for barbarism.

Isaac Herzog, then, is mistaken when he says that “Terrorism is terrorism. There’s no two ways about it.” There are quite definitely two ways about it: terrorism is not terrorism when a much more severe terrorist attack is carried out by those who are Righteous by virtue of their power.

Similarly, there is no assault against freedom of speech when the Righteous destroy a TV channel supportive of a government that they are attacking.

By the same token, we can readily comprehend the comment in the New York Times of civil rights lawyer Floyd Abrams, noted for his forceful defense of freedom of expression, that the Charlie Hebdo attack is “the most threatening assault on journalism in living memory.”

He is quite correct about “living memory,” which carefully assigns assaults on journalism and acts of terror to their proper categories: Theirs, which are horrendous; and Ours, which are virtuous and easily dismissed from living memory.

We might recall as well that this is only one of many assaults by the Righteous on free expression.

To mention only one example that is easily erased from “living memory,” the assault on Fallujah by US forces in November 2004, one of the worst crimes of the invasion of Iraq, which opened with occupation of Fallujah General Hospital.

Military occupation of a hospital is, of course, a serious war crime in itself, even apart from the manner in which it was carried out, blandly reported in a front-page story in the New York Times, accompanied with a photograph depicting the crime.

The story reported that “Patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs.”

The crimes were reported as highly meritorious, and justified: “The offensive also shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the militants: Fallujah General Hospital, with its stream of reports of civilian casualties.”

Evidently such a propaganda agency cannot be permitted to spew forth its vulgar obscenities.

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/noam-chom...-war-on-terror

[Abz2000]

I'm going to go to sleep soon as it's late here,
The only thing i need to say is:
let us all repent and submit to God. Coz His Kingdom and Rule is here.
And if we find ourselves happily and willingly taking part in evil due to the status quo in our geo-location - come out of her my people lest you be partakers.

Peace to those who follow the guidance of Allah and submit to His laws as revealed to His slave Muhammad (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, his family, and all who follow him).

I know it may sound crazy to some, but hopefully it'll make sense.

[Pygoscelis]

Hi Junon

I agree with you that Muslims should not apologize. It would make no sense to. Even if the guys who did this were Muslims, and say they did it in the name of Islam, you, and other Muslims, are not responsible for what happened. I do, however, think it is important for Muslims to stand up and say "These people were not muslims. Islam does not allow for this". That is the best way to deflate the anti-muslim sentiment that is being drummed up following events such as this one. On the other hand, remarks such as we have seen in this thread excusing the act of violence, or justifying it, as h-n and abz appear to be doing (and they can correct me if I am wrong) do the opposite.

[Abz2000]

I do, however, think it is important for Muslims to stand up and say "These people were not muslims. Islam does not allow for this". That is the best way to deflate the anti-muslim sentiment that is being drummed up following events such as this one.

Ok ok, i admit that i think it's highly likely that these people were not Muslims and that the infidel government of France staged a false flag in order to shore up support at a time when people are questioning their acts in Libya and Syria - their violence in these cases are totally unjustified.
I also pray for the two boys who they Murdered in cold blood having claimed to have found an ID card - that helped them wrap up the case faster than that of Oswald.

The boys obviously didn't turn themselves in like the first of the three since they were already wanted and faced unjust punishments if they were caught.

Reminds me of the marathon case:
Sad how they prevented this boy going to Russia and murdered him in cold blood two days before his flight simply because he knew too much about their lies and was going to talk once safe, and then lied about him pulling a knife or samurai or stick or "something" simply because he didn't sign on a false incrimination document.
It's very difficult to believe any of what they say after stories like this:

Ibragim Todashev*(Ибрагим Тодашев) (September 22, 1985 – May 22, 2013) was a*Chechen American*former*mixed martial artist*and a friend of suspected*Boston Marathon bomber*and former amateur boxer,*Tamerlan Tsarnaev. At his apartment in Orlando, Florida, he was shot dead by*FBI*agent Aaron McFarlane during a police interview on May 22, 2013.

On the afternoon of May 22, 2013, law enforcement officers,
including FBI*special agent*Aaron McFarlane from the Boston field office*
and two Massachusetts State Police*(MSP) troopers, Curtis Cinelli and Joel Gagne,
arrived at Ibragim Todashev's apartment in*Orlando, Florida, and interviewed Todashev for approximately eight hours in his living room.
According to Todashev's father, Abdulbaki, the questioning took place two days before his scheduled flight to Russia;
Abdulbaki's American attorney Eric Ludin said Ibragim Todashev had undergone multiple prior interrogations in Florida and was promised this would be the last one,
and had canceled a planned trip to Chechnya earlier in May on the advice of the FBI.

Officials initially claimed that Todashev picked up a knife or attempted to grab a samurai sword from the wall,
but later said that it was unclear whether this was the case;
one source said it was "a knife or a pipe or something ". (this is america's fbi? )
A number of later reports said that he was unarmed.[23][24][25][26]*

Some earlier accounts implied that the FBI agent was alone with Todashev at the time of the shooting .[24]*
Following Todashev's death, his father showed photographs to reporters in Moscow that he said demonstrated his son had been shot at point-blank range in the head.[27]
According to the account of an unnamed law enforcement official, Todashev knocked the interrogating agent to the ground with a table, and then lunged at him with a metal pole, or possibly a broomstick.[28]*
In this account there was one detective in the room (who did not fire) besides the FBI agent .....
..... Todashev's body was flown to Russia on June 20 by his American widow and his father;[30]
he was buried in a Muslim cemetery in Grozny on June 29.[31]
*On July 16, the release of Todashev's autopsy report, completed by a Florida medical examiner's office,
was blocked by the FBI because the "case was still under active investigation."[32]

....
.... It was the FBI agent who shot all of the bullets.
If this were a survival shooting, typically all of the officers will draw their weapons,"[38]
*adding that "sympathetic" federal sources within the DOJ and FBI assured CAIR that Todashev was unarmed.[13]

When the*Russian embassy in Washington, DC, learned of Todashev's shooting, it asked the U.S. government for the relevant documentation, including the autopsy report as well as information about the firearms used in the incident.
The autopsy report has remained sealed,
and an FBI spokesman said that no documents relating to the case would be provided to Russia until the FBI completes its own investigation.
(what harm can an autopsy report do to a genuine case?)


....According to the father, the FBI "bandits" allegedly executed his "100% unarmed" son to silence him for an unspecified reason....


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibragim_Todashev

Do you not have a brazen, cruel and criminal element shepherding you?

May all of mankind repent and be guided.
Or suffer the wrath of God who is the best of judges.......

[Abz2000]

And now we find that the police commissioner at the center of the hebdo case has been suicided:

The 45-year-old was investigating the devastating terrorist attack at Charlie Hebdo magazine when he killed himself

A senior French police officer investigating the Charlie Hebdo magazine massacre killed himself just hours after the horrific terror attack.

Commissioner Helric Fredou, 45, shot himself in his police office in Limoges last Wednesday night, France 3 reported.
His body was found by a colleague at 1am on Thursday, hours after the terror attack at the satirical magazine's office which left 12 people dead.

It has been reported that shortly before committing suicide Commissioner Fredou had met with the family of one of the victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack massacre...

...... In a statement released after his death, a spokesman for the union said:
"It is with great sadness that we were informed this morning of the death of our colleague Helric Fredou, assigned as Deputy Director of the Regional Service Judicial Police in Limoges."
On this particular day of national mourning, police commissioners are hit hard by the tragic death of one of their own."
The Union of Commissioners of the National Police would like to present its most sincere condolences to the relatives of Helric.
"In these difficult times, we have a special thought for all his colleagues."
...
... French media reports suggest he was depressed and was suffering from burnout.

....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...helric-4963644

Helric Fredou shot himself on Wednesday night in Limoges, France
He had been the deputy director of the regional police since 2012*
Commissioner Fredou was said to have been 'depressed' and overworked.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906808/Police-commissioner-shot-dead-office-meeting-relatives-Charlie-Hebdo-victim-claim-French-TV-news.html

They concluded that one quick too.
Despite it being such a sensitive case and motive for elimination by anyone wanting to manipulate the case......
One could be forgiven for expecting (in the event they weren't covering something up) that they would say his suspicious death or death in suspicious circumstances - was being investigated due to the nature of the case.

This was a top cop guys, not a pet sitter who might just faint if the cat died.

You want me to apologize for suiciding him too pygo? Or to say he wasn't a cop but a cowardly traitor to France maybe?

God knows what on earth one is meant to think after stuff like this........something definitely not kosher (or maybe kosher but not halal) about this hebdo hack.

Hell, who knows even whether the news reports are true! Anyone else confused?

Cui bono?
Who benefits?
Is there a motive?
How much have they invested in Syria?

Lawyer Richard Malka said this week's issue will 'of course' contain images of the Prophet.Mr Malka told France Info radio: 'We will not give in. The spirit of 'Je suis Charlie' means the right to blaspheme.
He added: 'We will not give in otherwise all this won't have meant anything.

Now i'm beginning to see purposeful incitement in the preparation for huge anti-government rallies and a demonization tool in the event of would be controversial crackdowns.

Didn't bush follow that method of operation?
And lyman lemnitzer with northwoods too?

[Hulk]

Ahmed Merabet, the police officer gunned down in the Charlie Hebdo attack, was killed in an act of barbarity by “false Muslims” his brother said in a moving tribute on Saturday, where he also appealed for unity and tolerance.

Speaking for a group of relatives gathered in Paris, Malek Merabet said the terrorists who ignored his brother’s plea for mercy as he lay wounded on the street may have shared his Algerian roots, but had nothing else in common.

“My brother was Muslim and he was killed by two terrorists, by two false Muslims,” he said. “Islam is a religion of peace and love. As far as my brother’s death is concerned it was a waste. He was very proud of the name Ahmed Merabet, proud to represent the police and of defending the values of the Republic – liberty, equality, fraternity.”

Full article at here

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I used an analogy to point out the fallacy in your line of reasoning. Are you so simple that you can't comprehend that?

I've got a Master's degree in Philosophy. I've seen more analogies than you've had hot dinners. :D

I pointed out the errors in your argument by using the same form but with different subjects. Concluding that I liken muslims to wild animals based on that is a sure sign of lack of intelligence.

It's amazing how your words can unconsciously betray you, isn't it? I'm sure that you didn't intend to liken Muslims to wild animals, but that is a direct implication of your words.

If my mentioning it offends you, then I apologise. I will also apologise to anyone else reading this who found it offensive. I certainly don't believe Muslims are like wild animals and would never say such a thing.

Fair enough though, you were right about my careless analogy to begin with - I concede that. I still believe that people in this thread have indirectly expressed approval for what the murderers did, however.

As I have already mentioned, the responsibility lies upon everyone in the community regardless of their religious beliefs.

I agreed with you the first time you said this.

To say that muslims are responsible (whether directly or indirectly) for bad actions done by other people who happen to share the same faith as them is stupid.

You mentioned this before as well.

So do you agree that it would be wrong to judge Islam based on the actions of those who claim to practice it?

If that was the sole criterion for passing a judgement then I think that would be wrong, yes. But it can and should inform a judgement, as long as other things are also taken into account, such as reading Islamic scriptures and scholarly opinions.

Once again, you missed the point. Just because I use an analogy to point out an error in your line of reasoning doesn't necessarily mean I'm equating the subjects. So now you're going to say I liken muslims to chefs? I thought atheists pride themselves in being rational.

It doesn't mean you're equating the subjects, no. It means you are claiming they are analogous.

I think your analogy is inappropriate, though. A bad tasting meal is a negative result, but on a scale of seriousness it would warrant a fairly low score. The chef might have a few awkward questions to answer, and it may or may not be worth having a cursory glance at the cookbook to see if he might have been misled by unclear wording etc.

But a negative result involving actual human deaths is far more serious, and all possible causes should be investigated thoroughly.

So according to your reasoning just because someone holds the opinion that those things should be banned then they are an extremist?

No, that doesn't follow from my line of argument at all. The fallacy you've just committed is called affirming the consequent.

You're committing a slippery slope fallacy in an attempt to defend your position.

The slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if the proponent claims each step follows inevitably from its predecessor. I only claim that the subsequent steps are possible.

You should be used to hearing the slippery slope argument, as it is often used by Islamic scholars when explaining rulings on haram things such as music and alcohol.

I'd explain to you what that means but you'd probably say I'm equating one thing with another.

Thanks for sparing me the explanation. :D

So your idea of defending free speech is to spread a specific kind of mockery?

"A cartoonist is killed for making offensive images and making an extremist angry. I want to defend free speech and show my support for it. Therefore I should spread these specific offensive images."

Do you see the stupidity in that?

Defending free speech is about much more than that, but it does include declining to ban certain forms of mockery. Spreading the cartoon images at the centre of this issue is one way of supporting free speech, but it's really more about showing extremists that we will not be bullied by people who use violence to express their beliefs.

Supporters of free speech should encourage the free broadcast of all kinds of material, and that will likely include material that I, you or others may find offensive. In your techno example below, the correct way to support the view that people have the right to listen to all genres of music is to promote and spread all genres, not just techno.

You have already said that you find it easy to ignore stupidity, and I say good for you. I would hope therefore that you would find it easy to ignore some stupid offensive cartoons. I don't believe for one moment that you would launch a violent attack on the cartoonist in response. But do not attempt to justify those who do, and do not defend anyone who makes such an attempt.

It's risky but I'll try to use an example to explain.

"A person is killed for playing techno music. I want to defend the idea that people have the right to listen to whatever music genre they want. Therefore I should spread techno music around."

I know you're probably very tempted to say "Oh you're saying images mocking islam is like techno!". No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm using the same line of reasoning/form of argument to show the error in it.

Oh, you didn't spare me the explanation that time. imsad

Peace

[Abz2000]

Czgibson managed to avoid the heat.

And now i know why people are more comfortable parroting lamestream media and puppet politician lies and staying within the talking points projected rather than be suspicious after having been lied to multiple times and ask fundamental questions.....

“It's eaier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
― Mark Twain.*

[Peshpak]

I am saddened to read post here that make excuses for what happened in Paris and for that matter similar incidents in other countries. I read a line in a post above here saying we don't need to apologies. Making excuses is apologising. It's simple . . . nobody should kill or harm another person, no matter how offensive, no matter how disrespectful. That should be the start and the end of this thread, that should be the start and the end of every response by every Muslim to what happened. It's not something to discuss or debate it's simply lunacy to kill someone who offends you.

[BeTheChange]

If anyone has watched 'prison break' you will see many similarities of the world we live in - i.e. the people in power v's the masses and their elaborated hocus pocus stage to frame an innocent (powerless to the eye) party.

May Allah swa forgive the innocent individuals who have passed away, forgive thier sins, bring ease and peace to the families and help us all see the truth Ameen.

[Hulk]

I've got a Master's degree in Philosophy. I've seen more analogies than you've had hot dinners.

Good for you.

It's amazing how your words can unconsciously betray you, isn't it? I'm sure that you didn't intend to liken Muslims to wild animals, but that is a direct implication of your words.

If my mentioning it offends you, then I apologise. I will also apologise to anyone else reading this who found it offensive. I certainly don't believe Muslims are like wild animals and would never say such a thing.

Fair enough though, you were right about my careless analogy to begin with - I concede that. I still believe that people in this thread have indirectly expressed approval for what the murderers did, however.

Since you are adamant about it, if you're being honest to yourself you would at most say that I was likening dangerous people/extremists to lions. Not "muslims to wild animals". Though that would have been missing the point I was making which was point out the error in your statement

In the case we are discussing, we know what the negative consequences have been. Dead bodies. If you stood over a murder victim and said "you get burned, when you play with fire", that unequivocally expresses support for the murder. How could it not?

If that was the sole criterion for passing a judgement then I think that would be wrong, yes. But it can and should inform a judgement, as long as other things are also taken into account, such as reading Islamic scriptures and scholarly opinions.

Even when it comes to approaching scripture and learning of scholar's opinions there are proper ways to do it interpretation is not up to any tom dick and harry.

No, that doesn't follow from my line of argument at all. The fallacy you've just committed is called affirming the consequent.

My statement refers to you saying

Suppose the extremists get their way, and French law moves to ban mockery of Islam.

As though the only ones against the mockery are the extremists. It seems that your argument heavily involves around "we can't let the extremists win!" without realising that majority of muslims who are not extremists might see something wrong in what you're doing.

"We must spread these cartoons! Because the extremists doesn't want us to!" without keeping in consideration that majority of muslims might find it highly offensive.

Basically, the justification for your actions is merely "so that the extremists don't have their way", rather than actually thinking about whether what you're doing is proper or not.

Supporters of free speech should encourage the free broadcast of all kinds of material, and that will likely include material that I, you or others may find offensive. In your techno example below, the correct way to support the view that people have the right to listen to all genres of music is to promote and spread all genres, not just techno.

You have already said that you find it easy to ignore stupidity, and I say good for you. I would hope therefore that you would find it easy to ignore some stupid offensive cartoons. I don't believe for one moment that you would launch a violent attack on the cartoonist in response. But do not attempt to justify those who do, and do not defend anyone who makes such an attempt.

So just like the example I gave, if one wishes to support your cause, then they should also spread things that are offensive to jews, blacks, white, asians, etc right? If you say "no, only the islamic ones should be spread because it is mainly showing our unity towards the people who react violently to such images", then if someone gets hurt for using a racial slur against a black man then you would agree that your cause should post racist images against black people to show your unity right?

And like I said, I do find it easy to ignore stupidity, this has never been an issue of "justifying" extremists at all so I don't see the point in telling me not to justify extremism. The issue to me is the rationale behind your cause.

[TheEnd]

This was a false flag operation perpetrated by mossad, to further their "greater Israel ambitions.
this is so obvious, if you cant see this, then open your eyes. not here to debate this, rather vent my frustration on how pathetic and weak the muslim ummah has become. we are getting played like a fiddle.

[czgibson]

Greetings Hulk,

I think it's fair to say your last post has been the most incredible one so far.

Even when it comes to approaching scripture and learning of scholar's opinions there are proper ways to do it interpretation is not up to any tom dick and harry.

Of course. Religions usually try to restrict ordinary people from interpreting scriptures as much as possible.

As though the only ones against the mockery are the extremists.

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but that does not follow from my line of argument at all. The fact that I don't believe it either (as it is obviously untrue) seems hardly worth mentioning, when you persist in committing a straightforward formal fallacy. Read all about it:

Affirming the consequent

It seems that your argument heavily involves around "we can't let the extremists win!" without realising that majority of muslims who are not extremists might see something wrong in what you're doing.

"We must spread these cartoons! Because the extremists doesn't want us to!" without keeping in consideration that majority of muslims might find it highly offensive.

Being offended from time to time is one of the prices we pay for living in a society with a free press. Anyone who is not comfortable with that should go and live somewhere else.

Basically, the justification for your actions is merely "so that the extremists don't have their way", rather than actually thinking about whether what you're doing is proper or not.

What should we all do then? Sit tight and wait for the next attack?

So just like the example I gave, if one wishes to support your cause, then they should also spread things that are offensive to jews, blacks, white, asians, etc right? If you say "no, only the islamic ones should be spread because it is mainly showing our unity towards the people who react violently to such images", then if someone gets hurt for using a racial slur against a black man then you would agree that your cause should post racist images against black people to show your unity right?

Attacking people's ideas is acceptable in our society. Attacking people's race is not.

And like I said, I do find it easy to ignore stupidity, this has never been an issue of "justifying" extremists at all so I don't see the point in telling me not to justify extremism. The issue to me is the rationale behind your cause.

Would you like to condemn the killers in Paris at any point during this discussion? Or would you like to carry on getting worked up about my tiny personal campaign to encourage freedom of speech?

I am saddened to read post here that make excuses for what happened in Paris and for that matter similar incidents in other countries. I read a line in a post above here saying we don't need to apologies. Making excuses is apologising. It's simple . . . nobody should kill or harm another person, no matter how offensive, no matter how disrespectful. That should be the start and the end of this thread, that should be the start and the end of every response by every Muslim to what happened. It's not something to discuss or debate it's simply lunacy to kill someone who offends you.

I think this is by far the sanest and most humane response I've seen in the thread so far. Good for you.

Peace

[IslamicRevival]

Its unbelievable how the media goes on about freedom of speech whilst ignoring facts such as france banning pro palestinian protests, niqab and many other injustices against Islam. I mean what happened to freedom of speech there? SubhanAllah what a crazy world we live in.

What the attackers did is wrong because in Islam if one person kills another it's as though he's slain the whole of humanity and if one saves someone life, it's as though they've saved the whole of humanity.

The world should condemn these cartoonists for persistently mocking our beloved Prophet peace be upon him. This is not satire, this is out and out provacation and for every action there's a possibility of a reaction. Freedom of speech isn't a license to insult or ridicule when you please.

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Abz,

You know that it wasn't an attack but a sincere response to your advice, and that it was not like the abusive and slanderous cartoons, nor a blind attack in the guise of intellectual criticism similar to the comments of pro-zionists who pretend to criticize islam on a subject while being ignorant of / keeping*mum about the very same thing which is in the Bible.

By "attack" I meant your response was polemical. Keep in mind the issue was that you felt the negative spotlight was still good for Islam, and my point was that it's obviously not. I'm not quite sure how Jesus and us "going off the track" falls into this discussion, nor the comments about pro-Zionists above. I'm not sure if this is just your style of writing but you come across very defensive and antagonistic, I'm not you're enemy here (at least I don't see you as an enemy!), we're just two people having a discussion.

Ya tryina tempt me or wot :) ?
Show me a denarius and see whose inscription is on it first.

No, I'm just asking for your opinion, I'm not quite sure how this would be considered me trying to entrap you. Perhaps you could explain?

First of i can't even pretend to be certain of whether it was another false flag aimed to achieve controversial policies - since even more complicated false flags are well documented - or a sincere effort in order to defend the truth.

If it was a false flag the it was reprehensible and deceitful - an act of cowards unwilling to show their true colours.
If it was a sincere act by people who were enraged at the abuses Muslims have to endure in france and the insults on the sacred honour of God's Messengers and triggered by the bombing of innocents in syria and elsewhere - Then suffice it to be said that i would rejoice at the repentance, and in the absence of repentance - punishment of any who would dare to portray my mother, wife or sister in a lewd fashion, drawing a mocking cartoon of your mother being pushed naked in a wheelchair is like an invitation to get clapped.
And the Messengers of God are dearer to us than our own mothers and fathers.

So you personally feel it was justified from an Islamic point of view. That's all I was asking.

Ummm.... The surveys and stats are there for any who bother to research, along with the news reports and direct testimonies of multiple mosque leaders who described a phenominal increase in the weeks and months after.

Yes, I am aware of the statistics and they don't reinforce your position, which is why I asked what your sources were. Your "sources" are anecdotal and don't constitute actual statistical analysis. Here is some information that is from actual statistical research:

"Statistical data on conversion to and from Islam are scarce. What little information is available suggests that there is no substantial net gain or loss in the number of Muslims through conversion globally; the number of people who become Muslims through conversion seems to be roughly equal to the number of Muslims who leave the faith. As a result, this report does not include any estimated future rate of conversions as a direct factor in the projections of Muslim population growth."

And...

"The Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007, found a similar pattern in the United States. In that survey, the number of respondents who described themselves as Muslim was roughly the same as the number who said they were raised as Muslims, and the portion of all U.S. adults who have converted either to or from Islam was less than three-tenths of 1 percent (>0.3%). Due to the relatively small number of Muslims in the nationally representative survey sample, however, it was not possible to calculate a precise retention rate for the Islamic faith in the U.S."

Less than three-tenths of 1 percent (!!!), and even then the data is so small we can't make any reasonable conclusions about it.

This is taken from: http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/f...rs/#conversion

You want some of the thousands out there?
OK.

And here comes the anecdotal evidence...

CNN NEWS : Million of Americans converted to ISLAM After 9/11 ...

Ah, CNN *Headline* news, the evil pro-Zionist media mill! Let's take a look what they had to say...

...Ok, so they report two conversions, one woman was converting during the marriage ceremony and said she thought Islam was "peaceful" and didn't wear her hijab consistently, hmm, interesting. The other said she felt Islam gave her a better relationship wigh God because as a Christian she would pray to Jesus and say Hail Mary's. I guess some people prefer the Master-slave relationship over a loving God that treats his creation and adopted children.

Do these two anecdotal cases mean there has been mass conversion due to 9/11 and studying Islam? Hardly. And the bigger question is, if CNN Headline News was aware of statistical data such as the Pew Forum research, why would they provoke the idea that Islam is gaining so many converts? In other words, why would the "pro-Zionist" Media apparently support Islam? I'm curious to know what sister Abz thinks, I'll withhold my hypothesis until later.

Conversion To Islam One Result Of Post-9/11 Curiosity

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_935572.html

An article written by Omar Sacirbey. Hmm, wonder what religion he could be?

I'm not sure whether you looked into any of these yourselves or whether you just pulled the first thing that came up in a google search, but the article begins talking about a convert who purchased a Quran after 9/11 and what to see if "her notions of Islam as a patriarchal and now seemingly violent religion, would be confirmed." I guess it's a good think she didn't talk to someone like you first Abz ;)

Even so, it's still anecdotal, but then it does attempt to pass at least one statistical statement, "Though exact numbers are difficult to tally, observers estimate that as many as 20,000 Americans convert to Islam annually." Not exactly a scientific statement! I did try to find what the source of this was, and I could only find an indirect reference to CAIR, an American Muslim lobbying and advocacy group, which has every bit of interest in making Muslims seem like a large and fast growing minority.

NYDAILYNEWS
Number of Muslims in the U.S. doubles since 9/11*
MEGHAN NEAL2012, 3 May, 12:49 PM

A new survey reveals the dramatically changing face of religion in America, with the number of Muslims in the U.S. soaring 67% in the decade since the 9/11 attacks.
.... the burst of anti-Islam sentiment after the 9/11 attacks could have done more to grow the religion's presence in the U.S. than slow it. Those on the fence about converting to Islam may have decided to do so on principle."Persecution is sometimes good for a religious group — in the sense of being able to attract more followers, for some reason," Jones said. "Rarely is opposition a very effective tool in stopping the growth of a movement."....
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/nation....1071895#bmb=1

Even without going into the statistics, and assuming this is absolutely accurate, if the large increase population over the last decade is due to (1) migration and (2) higher birth rates it doesn't prove your point that 9/11 sprouted mass conversions.

Peace to those who research sincerely, repent, accept all of God's Messengers and submit to God's Laws.

And peace to you if you are sincere and repentant.


As an aside, the fastest growing Islamic denomination is the Ahmadiyya sect! I wonder how many converts the Sufis capture? Doesn't say much if the converts are not even considered Muslim by other Muslims ;)

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Vision,

Its unbelievable how the media goes on about freedom of speech whilst ignoring facts such as france banning pro palestinian protests, niqab and many other injustices against Islam. I mean what happened to freedom of speech there? SubhanAllah what a crazy world we live in.

What makes those things unjust in your opinion? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question. Because I sense that Muslims have a conditional understanding of justice. You wouldn't for example say it's unjust to prohibit a missionary from preaching in an Islamic nation, would you? Or to use a more concrete example, the fact that Christian workers in Saudi Arabia can't bear any religious items?

[syed_z]

Hi Junon

I agree with you that Muslims should not apologize. It would make no sense to. Even if the guys who did this were Muslims, and say they did it in the name of Islam, you, and other Muslims, are not responsible for what happened. I do, however, think it is important for Muslims to stand up and say "These people were not muslims. Islam does not allow for this". That is the best way to deflate the anti-muslim sentiment that is being drummed up following events such as this one. On the other hand, remarks such as we have seen in this thread excusing the act of violence, or justifying it, as h-n and abz appear to be doing (and they can correct me if I am wrong) do the opposite.

Dear Pygoscelis,

We understand what your saying and yes there will be sentiments from our community that you might see being expressed and that is also because of Western Extremism in the shape of military attacks which is cause of the mess in the Middle East and its effect in the West.

The airstrikes in Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and Libya and Somalia and Mali have killed and continue to kill innocent men women and children. Shouldn't you be saying something about that and condemning it or do you justify them?

I advise you to go to the root of the problem and not just keep analyzing things on the surface.

In my language there is a saying that 'A Clap sound is made with 2 hands and not 1'...... the sound of terrorism is being caused by Western Extremism and Islamic Extremism.

Lets not forget that as per Western Media reports, the 2 shooters got the inspiration to go to extremes after seeing the horrifying pictures of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib.

[Hulk]

Would you like to condemn the killers in Paris at any point during this discussion? Or would you like to carry on getting worked up about my tiny personal campaign to encourage freedom of speech?

Do you believe that I owe it to you to condemn wrong actions in front of you? If you don't see me condemning a wrong action would you conclude based on that that I support that wrong action? Do you ask everyone you meet "why haven't you condemned the killers?" ?

Of course. Religions usually try to restrict ordinary people from interpreting scriptures as much as possible.

It's called recognising your lack of knowledge and leaving the interpretations to those who are more knowledgable in the subject than you.

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but that does not follow from my line of argument at all. The fact that I don't believe it either (as it is obviously untrue) seems hardly worth mentioning, when you persist in committing a straightforward formal fallacy. Read all about it:

If you do not believe it, then why is it that you only mention the "extremists" being the against the mockery as if they are the majority? Perhaps it makes it easier for you to justify your position?

Being offended from time to time is one of the prices we pay for living in a society with a free press. Anyone who is not comfortable with that should go and live somewhere else.

As I mentioned, the issue is about the rationale behind your position. Intentionally offending people in the name of "free speech".

What should we all do then? Sit tight and wait for the next attack?

So your answer is to intentionally mock people who have nothing to do with extremism?

Attacking people's ideas is acceptable in our society. Attacking people's race is not.

This is what you said

Spreading the cartoon images at the centre of this issue is one way of supporting free speech, but it's really more about showing extremists that we will not be bullied by people who use violence to express their beliefs.

Supporters of free speech should encourage the free broadcast of all kinds of material, and that will likely include material that I, you or others may find offensive

If a black man punches you for making images offensive to black people, then that would to you be a form of bullying against freedom of speech.

This is your line of reasoning

1. I believe in freedom of speech.
2. Some people are killed by 2 people for practicing freedom of speech (mocking muslims).
3. To show solidarity against people like these killers, I must therefore spread the images (mocking muslims) that these killers don't like.

Interestingly, this line of reasoning works when it comes to muslims but when it comes to ethnicities suddenly it doesn't work?

You're still attacking things that are part of people's identities.

[Abz2000]

This thread is becoming a joke, you've got a bunch of trolls trying to push this love theme that isn't there while attacking everything that's true.
My initial comment was removed by a brother because of it's ferocity but the member who read it and responded seems to pretend they didn't , yet continued with all the insignificant crap, so i rephrased it to try and make it fit the situation without bias.

Re: Paris Shooting

*Originally Posted by*Pygoscelis*I would normally agree, that such cartoons are in bad taste and should be discouraged. But, when violence is being used to threaten and bully the cartoonists, I find it even more important to hoist them up. It shows that we will not be intimidated. And, come on, these are cartoons. People need to grow a thicker skin.

First of i'm not an infidel so i don't have pig skin.
And second i don't pretend to know what actually happened and after the suspicious death of the police commissioner as he was writing his report on the night of the event, my suspicions are high.

Will you infidel and liberal shills answer this question or what?

would you accept it if you were a jew in 1940's germany and it was a picture of your mum stark naked being pushed in a wheelchair by german nazi?
And if at first you protested and the next door neighbour or local councillor said he wouldn't be intimidated by you - an extremist - and made a thousand copies and a thousand more "members of the party" walked about with such a picture in public would you say he was just expressing free speech or being abusive and disgusting in an attempt get a reaction by driving you to fury and making you flip? or would you say, it's ok, they're just trying to pi*s me off and get a reaction with my mum's naked picture so i will just laugh and not go kamikazee.
would you be able to look your mum in the face again?

[syed_z]

Ahmed Merabet, the police officer gunned down in the Charlie Hebdo attack, was killed in an act of barbarity by “false Muslims” his brother said in a moving tribute on Saturday, where he also appealed for unity and tolerance.

Speaking for a group of relatives gathered in Paris, Malek Merabet said the terrorists who ignored his brother’s plea for mercy as he lay wounded on the street may have shared his Algerian roots, but had nothing else in common.

“My brother was Muslim and he was killed by two terrorists, by two false Muslims,” he said. “Islam is a religion of peace and love. As far as my brother’s death is concerned it was a waste. He was very proud of the name Ahmed Merabet, proud to represent the police and of defending the values of the Republic – liberty, equality, fraternity.”

Full article at here

Jazak Allah Khayr bro Hulk for sharing that. The Muslim policeman and the Muslim worker from the supermarket have damaged to quite a big extent by the grace of Allah (swt) this stereotypical attitude of media towards Islam and Muslims. They planned but Allah (swt) also plans and takes care of the believers, there are believers from amongst the non Muslim Western people as well and this news will open their eyes.

Just wanted to share the following with all Brothers and Sisters...

I would like to share developments that I watched mainly on Euro News channel at home, that were taking place throughout Western Europe before this attack and all lead towards the same purpose and it seems is to curb Muslim immigration, and the reason underlying that seems to curb the spread of Islam which is by the grace of Allah (swt) spreading quite fast in Western EU or as the Far Rightist Movements of EU see as a threat to their existence.

So I believe that it is not only about Western Christians and Secularists accepting Islam but that they by living side by side with Muslims will begin to have a soft corner for them and this might unite them thus defeating the ambitions of Far Rightist Movements throughout Western EU who are Anti Islam and Muslim.

1. I observed that in the news updates leading to the Paris attack, there was a large gathering of Far Rightist Movement named PEGIDA in Germany protesting against the Muslim immigration and so called 'Islamization of the West' which gained an upper hand in proving to the rest of the EU that they were right. They have been protesting since a few months I believe before the Paris Attack and are gaining popularity and trying to win the majority vote in elections through its affiliate politcal party AFD in Germany.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-9961433.html

2. Secondly there were Mosques which were set on fire in Sweden, 3 mosques in one week just before the Paris attack had reported arson attacks and were set on fire which resulted in a gathering held in support of the Muslims led by the Swedish Culture Minister Alice Bah Kuhnke. The following article gives something very interesting info:

The attacks followed the debates concerning immigration in Sweden. Far-right party Sweden Democrats got strong support in September elections calling for decreasing the number of immigrants, however, it did not enter the ruling coalition.

http://rt.com/news/219451-stockholm-...uslim-support/

These attacks in Sweden and the Far Right Party is debating on the Muslim immigration issue especially at a time when Syrian refugees are flocking to Sweden in large numbers. In 2014, Sweden took in its highest number of asylum seekers since 1992, when people fleeing the Balkan wars reached the Scandinavian country. A total of 81,300 people found refuge in the country last year – almost twice as many as in 2013. The refugees come mostly from Syria, which accounted for 30,600 asylum seekers in 2014.

They are resorting to arson attacks and similar attacks in order to scare away the refugees and lets not forget that Anders Brievek, a far rightist terrorist of Norway, another Scandinavian country killed several Norwegians to express his racism against Muslim immigration.

3. Thirdly, just 2 days before the Paris Attack a writer named Michel Houellebecq published a book called 'Soumission' (Submission in French) in which he depicts that the year is 2022 in France and elections are right around the corner and due to instability in France suddenly a Muslim man named Mohammed Ben Abbes has become the new ruler of France after defeating Marine Le Pen, the leader of the Far Right National Party that actually supports anti immigration laws and curb on the Muslim immigration in France.
http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2...-his-new-book/

Right after the Paris attack Le Pen called Islam an 'Odious Ideology' and the French opinions as reported by the media was that:

As the president of FN, Le Pen has vowed to drastically curb immigration if elected president. According to the latest opinion polls, if France were to hold its presidential election today, Le Pen would lead in the first round. The French presidential election is set to be held in April and May 2017.
http://rt.com/news/221167-le-pen-france-attacks/



......in short I just wanted to share what I had actually been observing since a couple of weeks before the Paris Attack that a campaign has been launched by Far Rightists Movements to curb Muslim immigrants from entering EU and the West in general as they fear that the liberal Leftists might start inclining towards Muslims and Islam which definitely is a threat to their existence and the Paris attack has actually done exactly what each of these movements wanted.


Whats more interesting is that I was thinking that the shooters died while fighting with the police commandos at the warehouse declaring they prefer dieing rather than surrender, as reported by the media and then it is the same shooters who wear a mask while attacking Charlie Hebdo so no one recognizes them? Doesn't make any sense.

[Abz2000]

By Peter Allen In Paris

16:48

07 Feb 2014,

updated 18:11 07 Feb 2014

Hollande at record low.

Francois Hollande's approval rating has fallen below 20 per cent for the first time since he was elected in 2012, a new poll has revealed.
The French President's rating has dropped three points to just 19 per cent - a new low in his popularity, according to the TNS Sofres opinion poll for Le Figaro Magazine.


Meanwhile, a staggering 78 per cent of French voters have said they do not trust him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...edibility.html

[Peshpak]

On the subject of images and causing offence, can I know what impression you hoped to convey with your avatar? Did you ever entertain the possibility that some might find it provocative or offensive?

[Peshpak]

Abz2000

On the subject of images and causing offence, can I know what impression you hoped to convey with your avatar? Did you ever entertain the possibility that some might find it provocative or offensive?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all;

If everyone was stable and sane, I would agree that we could live with all this offensive stuff being published. About a quarter of the population will suffer mental health problems, there are around four thousand suicides per million people, plus all the self harm, so everyone is not sane and stable, I would imagine these statistics would roughly apply to the Muslim population too.

I am against all kinds of violence, whether by the pen or the sword, I believe in justice for all people, and the right to live in peace with our neighbours despite all our differences. If I want to live in peace with my neighbour, I have to help them find peace, that will not happen easily if I go out to offend him, that will just harm both of us.

David Cameron has lost my vote, he spoke out against terrorism, but he seems to condone offending people with free speech by not speaking out against these cartoons too.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

[Futuwwa]

Why do you think I've moved the goalposts? I stand by what I've said.

You disassociated yourself from the position, saying that that's just how the law is, implying that you didn't choose it to be that way. Okay, so you do support limitations on freedom of speech that you think there is a good reason for, but act indignant and outraged when Muslims want limitations you don't agree with. Good of you to be so upfront about your hypocrisy.

Where have I denied that Muslims have a right to participate in the democratic process?

You said that Muslims should accept the law as-is or leave the country. That is to deny them a say in what the law is to be. Funny how this take-it-as-it-is-or-leave-it attitude is something Muslims are singled out for whenever they protest against anything.

[Abz2000]

How it works:
There is a goodly pattern for you in Abraham and those with him, when they told their folk:
Lo! we are guiltless of you and all that ye worship beside Allah. We have done with you.
And there hath arisen between us and you hostility and hate for ever until ye believe in Allah only
- save that which Abraham promised his father (when he said): I will ask forgiveness for thee, though I own nothing for thee from Allah
- Our Lord! In Thee we put our trust, and unto Thee we turn repentant, and unto Thee is the journeying.
Quran 60:4

Gonna give ceasar back his fake fiat notes and buy real goods inshaAllah.

Careful, coz charlie might bite your fingers, then you won't all say you're charlie:

Part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrM6i8OlxrM

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXbyDcHAUnQ

Wa nasahtu lakum.
Salaam.

[Peshpak]

How it works:
And there hath arisen between us and you hostility and hate for ever until ye believe in Allah only

This is the problem; you (and your like) are the problem for me and the other 99.99% of Muslims that are trying to convince the rest of the world that Islam is a religion of peace.

I hope you are not living in Dar al Harb amongst the kaafir that would be hypocritical (9:68) and we know what happens to hypocrites don't we?

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you Peshpak,

This is the problem; you (and your like) are the problem for me and the other 99.99% of Muslims that are trying to convince the rest of the world that Islam is a religion of peace.

I hope you are not living in Dar al Harb amongst the kaafir that would be hypocritical (9:68) and we know what happens to hypocrites don't we?

I hope the mods will forgive me for thinking out-loud here, but it seems like Abz2000 is trying almost *too* hard to come across as extreme. There's a sense of phoniness around it all, and personally I would not be surprised if one day it was discovered that he or she were really an undercover Mosad agent: collecting data, cataloging names, and trying to give Islam a bad name at the same time.

[InToTheRain]

Tweets from one of my fave Sheikhs https://twitter.com/shaykhabulhuda


- No insult to Prophet Muhammad PBUH is worse than killing innocent people by his Name. He said, human life is more precious than the Ka'ba.

- Insults to the Prophet of islam are not accepted by any Muslim and will not help eradicating terrorism.

- Republishing the cartoons against Prophet Muhammad BPUH helps extremists recruit more & creates hatred & fanaticism.

[czgibson]

Greetings Hulk,

Do you believe that I owe it to you to condemn wrong actions in front of you?

You don't owe it to me, but it's a simple matter of human decency when we're discussing the issue.

If you don't see me condemning a wrong action would you conclude based on that that I support that wrong action?

No. That would be affirming the consequent, your favourite fallacy.

Do you ask everyone you meet "why haven't you condemned the killers?"

No, it's not normally necessary. As soon as the issue is brought up, most people condemn the killers automatically.

It's called recognising your lack of knowledge and leaving the interpretations to those who are more knowledgable in the subject than you.

Islam claims to be a total and perfect system of life. I'm perfectly well-equipped to read its scriptures and make a judgment on whether to adopt it for my own life, thank you very much.

If you do not believe it, then why is it that you only mention the "extremists" being the against the mockery as if they are the majority? Perhaps it makes it easier for you to justify your position?

I'm not going to address this point again until you recognise the fallacy you persist in committing.

As I mentioned, the issue is about the rationale behind your position. Intentionally offending people in the name of "free speech".

So your answer is to intentionally mock people who have nothing to do with extremism?

I have answered these points repeatedly. You are not indicating that you've either read or understood my replies.

If a black man punches you for making images offensive to black people, then that would to you be a form of bullying against freedom of speech.

No, you haven't understood the argument. That would be an attack in response to racism. I support free speech; I do not support racism.

You're still attacking things that are part of people's identities.

This is far from clear. Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean.

I must admit, this is getting pretty tiresome. I believe I have answered every salient point you've made. In return, you have missed most of what I've said (I'm not convinced you've understood much of it), and you are now increasingly resorting to repeating yourself.

Here are a few points I think you have not yet answered:

* Do you recognise the distinction between attacking people's ethnicity and attacking people's beliefs?

* Do you recognise that being offended is part of the price we pay for living in a society with a free press?

* How do you respond to my suggestion that people who do not approve of the tradition of free speech that exists in European countries should go and live somewhere else?

Finally, I invite you to condemn the killers in Paris. You have had plenty of opportunities to do so, but for some reason you have chosen not to. Whether you decide to do it is up to you.

Peace

[M.I.A.]

I think talk about the Muslim community condemning the paris shooting is a state of perspective. Many European countries have generations of Muslim nationals.

Pairing this with constant attacks on religious integration within these countries.

Surely the most sound thing to do would be the express solidarity with those Muslim nationals..

To turn the tide and build bridges where the most expected thing to do is the knee jerk reaction of burning them.

Such a statement or show of solidarity is not likely or expected it would seem...

I can't understand why, seeing as religious integration has been a common subject in France of late.

[Abz2000]

Peace be with you Peshpak,



I hope the mods will forgive me for thinking out-loud here, but it seems like Abz2000 is trying almost *too* hard to come across as extreme. There's a sense of phoniness around it all, and personally I would not be surprised if one day it was discovered that he or she were really an undercover Mosad agent: collecting data, cataloging names, and trying to give Islam a bad name at the same time.

I hope God will forgive me if i'm wrong in thinking out-loud here and i feel sure i'm not, but it seems you "soujourn" are a troll pretending to follow Christ, you want me to be dismayed at the cartoons mocking God's Messengers while at the same time timid and accept them. And that's
Plain wrong.
Basically interprets into you wanting to create losers in this world and in the hereafter.
There's a sense of phoniness about you, i wouldn't be surprised if one day i found out you were a pharisee or saducee whre trying to get people to implicate themselves unnecessarily.
Well now you know that i will speak when necessary.
You can get an idea of me from the charlie videos above, i'm the one with the oyster chip at the train station in part one and holding charlie in the kitchen in part 2.
Going through my video history may give you an understanding of how i changed and what changed my understanding - if you're so interested.
Try not to predict me too much because you will most likely fail, focus on repenting and submitting to God and establishing the guidance of the Quran in yourself and family and community of humans - if indeed you live in such a community.
If they harm you after that, then may God be the judge as to what will happen.

This is the problem; you (and your like) are the problem for me and the other 99.99% of Muslims that are trying to convince the rest of the world that Islam is a religion of peace.

I hope you are not living in Dar al Harb amongst the kaafir that would be hypocritical (9:68) and we know what happens to hypocrites don't we?

Islam is a religion of justice, i would take it that a child reading through the Quran and biography of the Prophet (pbuh) would know this.
There's a time and a place.

I moved out from the place where kufr was forced on me and injustice was whitewashed like a tomb with corruption and dead men's bones within. i am also observing the situation where i'm at now and evaluating. The kufr support for the current puppet is pretty obvious and the farcical elections and U.N handshakes speak volumes.
Don't say i didn't leave you alone, i was 6000 miles away and i warned you and sincerely tried without pretences too - seems you don't like good advice.

This is where i'm at now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3kc1eqhIlo

-----



He said: let my people go, but pharaoh's heart was hardened.

Something for you to decipher:
Remove the obstacle or the bannister's going to rot - time is of the essence.

[Peshpak]

I moved out from the place where kufr was forced on me and injustice was whitewashed like a tomb with corruption and dead men's bones within. i am also observing the situation where i'm at now and evaluating. The kufr support for the current puppet is pretty obvious and the farcical elections and U.N handshakes speak volumes. Don't say i didn't leave you alone, i was 6000 miles away and i warned you and sincerely tried without pretences too - seems you don't like good advice.
.

Nice holiday vids, is that Noyabari Bangladesh or Noyabari Leicester; must be Leicester as there's no broadband in Noyabari Bangla, in fact there's no electricity!

[Hulk]

You don't owe it to me, but it's a simple matter of human decency when we're discussing the issue.

No. That would be affirming the consequent, your favourite fallacy.

No, it's not normally necessary. As soon as the issue is brought up, most people condemn the killers automatically.

Good so we've established that it's not necessary for me to condemn the wrong action of others in your presence just because they happen to be of the same faith as me, and to think that I need to otherwise I'm in support of it is incorrect.

I'm not going to address this point again until you recognise the fallacy you persist in committing.

I understand it would be a fallacy it would be a fallacy to claim that you are saying all muslims are extremists on the basis that you say that extremists are against the mockery. But I do recognise that it would be easier for you to justify your mockery if you pretend as if it is only the extremists that are against the mockery.

I have answered these points repeatedly. You are not indicating that you've either read or understood my replies.

It was a response to your statement

What should we all do then? Sit tight and wait for the next attack?

Do you believe that the only two choice of actions you have are "Spread mockery" and "Sit tight and wait for the next attack"?

No, you haven't understood the argument. That would be an attack in response to racism. I support free speech; I do not support racism.

I present you again with your line of reasoning

1. I believe in freedom of speech.
2. Some people are killed by 2 people for practicing freedom of speech (mocking muslims).
3. To show solidarity against people like these killers, I must therefore spread the images (mocking muslims) that these killers don't like.

Here is the line of reasoning that you do not like

1. I believe in freedom of speech.
2. Some people are killed by 2 people for practicing freedom of speech (mocking blacks/whites/jews/gays/hindus).
3. To show solidarity against people like these killers, I must therefore spread the images (mocking blacks/whites/jews/gays/hindus) that these killers don't like.

Exactly the same except the people being mocked. Do you agree?

Here are a few points I think you have not yet answered:

* Do you recognise the distinction between attacking people's ethnicity and attacking people's beliefs?

* Do you recognise that being offended is part of the price we pay for living in a society with a free press?

* How do you respond to my suggestion that people who do not approve of the tradition of free speech that exists in European countries should go and live somewhere else?

It doesn't matter whether you are mocking people for their faith, race or sexual orientation, you are still mocking people. For people who are being mocked, they should expect that from time to time they might find something offensive, but my argument is against the mockers like you and whether you can justify your actions. You would have to define what you mean by free speech, initially I thought it meant freedom to express anything, but based on your previous posts it seems that you have exceptions.

[IslamicRevival]

Peace be with you Vision,



What makes those things unjust in your opinion? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, it's a serious question. Because I sense that Muslims have a conditional understanding of justice. You wouldn't for example say it's unjust to prohibit a missionary from preaching in an Islamic nation, would you? Or to use a more concrete example, the fact that Christian workers in Saudi Arabia can't bear any religious items?

Peace. It's a matter of double standards, its outrageous how the so called world leaders have stood up to these attacks yet remain absolutely silent when Palestine is and has been bombarded every single day since 1947. Its sad times for humanity and it makes it even clearer that Muslim blood isn't worth much, if anything.

[Muhammad]

An interesting article which elaborates on much of what has been mentioned earlier:

Charlie Hebdo: The Rallying Cry for Free Speech Is Noble, but Hypocritical


I would invite those who are invoking the sanctity of free speech and freedom of self expression in response to the shootings in Paris to consider a few things.


In France, if you are a Muslim female teenager and you decide to express your identity by wearing a headscarf - not covering the face, just a headscarf - you will be kicked out of school. Permanently - until you agree not to wear it again. If a grown woman decides to wear the Niqab, French law renders her a prisoner of her own home, subject to arrest and hefty fines for simply walking down the street. If a different woman does not want to wear the niqab but does choose a headscarf, she's not allowed to become a teacher - for fear her Islamic identity might some how damage the children she works with.


This past summer, when hundreds upon hundreds of Muslim civilians were slaughtered in Gaza by American weapons in the hands of Israeli troops, we protested the massacre in the streets. Lucky us. In France, they banned pro-Palestinian protest entirely. You weren't allowed to tell your government that sitting on the fence while Israel pulverises a Muslim population that is mostly children is unacceptable. The message from the French authority was loud and clear: the loss of Muslim life is not an outrage. Even here in the UK, the media played down the protests as much as they could. The BBC all but blacked it out entirely. In the following months, legislation was introduced that makes any large-scale protest anywhere near Parliament Square practically impossible.


And we talk of free speech. The truth is, you are free to express your identity as long as it's *our* identity. As long as you aren't one of *them*. We don't want *them*. We don't care when *they* die. We don't like their religion or their culture, and when it tries to sit beside ours, fear-mongering newspapers burst into flames of indignation. When they commit crimes, we call them 'terrorist', because there are laws to protect criminals, but you can do anything you like to a terrorist. The recent CIA torture report made that crystal clear. Cherif Kouachi, one of the Paris shooters, told authorities when he was imprisoned for terrorist activity in 2008 that he joined to protest the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. And we all know what we did to those prisoners.


These shootings were horrific murders and should be treated as such, but any self-righteous Voltaire quotation about 'our' defence of free speech, and 'their' despicable culture of censorship is deeply, deeply hypocritical.


Unlike so many people around me, I am not Charlie Hebdo. I love to draw, but I wouldn't draw the prophet Mohammed, because when I learned about Islam, I learned that it is considered deeply offensive to do so. It's not just offensive to 'crazy' extremists, but to normal Muslims. It's the same reason why I wouldn't go in to a Catholic cathedral in a bikini because I have 'a right to'. And, although I love to swear, I would do my best not to in front of your granny, or small child. I am not censored, I am acting with respect. When you draw a political cartoon satirising someone in power, your attack is specific to an individual that you have decided deserves it. When your drawing is of something that offends not one powerful individual but an entire religion, which is already suffering from ignorant vilification in the West, you're no hero of free speech to me. I am reading, right now in fact, a graphic novel which depicts historic political relations between Judaism and Islam, and the story of the prophet Mohammed, all without drawing him. In fact, it's far more creative for doing so.


It is enough to say that murder is a terrible crime for which the perpetrators should be punished. We needn't whip ourselves into a self-righteous fury we haven't earned. I have a feeling that some people on high horses ought to look down and be sure they aren't riding an ass.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alex...b_6442684.html

[freewillynow]

This is not new, satirist have been around a long time to push the envelope on pointing out hypocrites in religion and governments, and no one is excluded because they are all guilty of wrong doings. Please stop making excuses for the actions of avenging Allah, it is wrong and should be preached against by all TRUE MUSLIMS if you want Islam to be perceived as religion of peace. If this is done you will see that the cartoonist and satirist will eventually have nothing to write about or just a lot less. If you can not see this then you are blind. Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering, everybody loses.

[M.I.A.]

Lol that's nice eh, if only you could save yourself from becoming part of the dark side.

..if god only wrote stories

Its a shame though because in reality there are so many driving factors that are out of are control. Maybe its what you do when your winning that counts.

Anyway, god does not need avenging and I don't know where losses become equal.. So I'm a pacifist even if I didn't want to be.

Not one of those that can fight twice as many and win.

Let's hope its not like the last time where you wait around for ages and then say we'll wait for the next one.

[Pygoscelis]

The airstrikes in Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and Libya and Somalia and Mali have killed and continue to kill innocent men women and children. Shouldn't you be saying something about that and condemning it or do you justify them?

The actions of the US Government's "War on Terror", and the other nations that have followed them have been attrocity. I say that directly and without reservation. I still starkly recall the George Bush speech following 9/11, the "with us or against us" tribalism, and the quasi-religious vigor to hate and attack not only terrorists, not only muslims, but pretty much anybody who is brown skinned and/or lives in the middle east. I live and work with Punjabi Indian Sikhs. These fellows have no connection to Islam, nevermind midle eastern Islam, nevermind terrorist middle east muslims, and yet they were spat at. It was horrible to see. And this was in Canada, not even the US where the hatred was and remains at its worst. A hatred that events like this feed into tenfold.

I also remember the demonstrations, letters to parliament, and other political actions that we, the Canadian public, tried to take. I am proud that Canada stayed out of much of the fray, and ashamed that Canada took part is some of it. I will condemn anybody who does such violent acts. I will condemn campaigns against innocent people. I will also condemn radicals of any sort who attack innocent people. I will not deflect or make excuses just because somebody may associate the doers of the act with a grouping that may include myself (by my race, my lack of religion, my place of residence, etc). I would hope the same is true of you and of the other Muslims here.

I condemn the school shootings that were going on (mostly in America) last year (which has absolutely nothing to do with muslims) and I condemn the media for pointing at "He was a muslim" whenever a muslim does something bad, and failing to do so when others do the same or similar vile acts. I equally condemn people who try to hide the connection to Islam, or any other ideology, when the people doing these evil actions clearly state they do it in that ideology's name. Like it or not, people have found justification in their minds through your religion. That is when people of that ideology or religion need to stand up and say "no way. Our ideology does not support that, and you are not one of us. You have perverted our ideology and you are trying to slander it by claiming you act in its name". I have seen this more than ever before by muslims in reaction to this attack in Paris, and that is awesome.

That anybody would make excuses for murdering people because of a cartoon is abhorent.

JE SUIS CHARLIE

[Pygoscelis]

This is not new, satirist have been around a long time to push the envelope on pointing out hypocrites in religion and governments, and no one is excluded because they are all guilty of wrong doings. Please stop making excuses for the actions of avenging Allah, it is wrong and should be preached against by all TRUE MUSLIMS if you want Islam to be perceived as religion of peace. If this is done you will see that the cartoonist and satirist will eventually have nothing to write about or just a lot less. If you can not see this then you are blind. Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering, everybody loses.

Indeed. And what I think is being missed here is that the people who make such hateful cartoons, do it in very large part because they do anticipate the reaction. And when the reaction comes, they feel like they have been proven right, and they will want to make more hateful cartoons. It is a cycle that can only be broken by the shaking of heads and rolling of eyes instead of the shaking of fists and rolling of heads.

Reminds me of one very poignant such cartoon that shows a guy with a sword and a sign reading "Anybody who calls me violent will be beheaded".

[LearnIslam]

Why does Anjem Choudary's rights under British law have any normative implications for any Islamic country?

Its not just Anjem Chaurdary. There are a number of Muslim clerics, and they waste no moment in spreading their ideas. Yet, no one is supposed to speak of their religion in a Muslim country. So, does Islam allow expression or not? Or is it only allow expression of ideas if you are a Muslim?

[Pygoscelis]

Its not just Anjem Chaurdary. There are a number of Muslim clerics, and they waste no moment in spreading their ideas. Yet, no one is supposed to speak of their religion in a Muslim country. So, does Islam allow expression or not? Or is it only allow expression of ideas if you are a Muslim?

To be fair, we can't judge by the same standards. Those countries don't pretend to support free speech, or freedom generally. We do. We should live up to our own ideals. When we fail to, that is on us, not them.

[LearnIslam]

. And when the reaction comes, they feel like they have been proven right, and they will want to make more hateful cartoons. It is a cycle that can only be broken by the shaking of heads and rolling of eyes instead of the shaking of fists and rolling of heads.

Reminds me of one very poignant such cartoon that shows a guy with a sword and a sign reading "Anybody who calls me violent will be beheaded".

Were the cartoon done in order to provoke Muslims? It showed Muhammed crying saying he doesn't know what to do about extremists. I asked this question in this forum too - what does Islam say about making objections? Does it say Muslims should kill others?

This is becoming an issue throughout the world to be honest. I am not just talking about Europe. Islam is a very political religion too - it has rules on what is correct and not, and it hinders Muslims from becoming part of societies they are in. PEGIDA was not formed in a day. Even people who aren't so militant about it are finding it hard to tolerate things.

Because Muslims look down on other religions - everyone is wrong, everyone's faith is evil, they are right. Is that what their religion teaches? I am reading the Quran, I don't see this train of thinking there.

[Pygoscelis]

Because Muslims look down on other religions - everyone is wrong, everyone's faith is evil, they are right. Is that what their religion teaches? I am reading the Quran, I don't see this train of thinking there.

If we are talking about average run of the mill muslims, instead of the radicals, I don't see a huge difference here. It looks like simple tribalism to me. You can see it in Christians, Republicans, and many other in-groups.

[LearnIslam]

To be fair, we can't judge by the same standards. Those countries don't pretend to support free speech, or freedom generally. We do. We should live up to our own ideals. When we fail to, that is on us, not them.

But its hypocrisy on part of the Muslims clerics wouldn't you agree - exercise that freedom when they oppose the very idea of it?

Is there ONE Muslim cleric with a huge following out there who we can say as representing Islamic values?

Because these leaders seem to support ISIS, terrorism. What is Muslim now? What is Islam? I think its unfair to the common Muslim too. The heart of the Muslim world is in tatters. Is there intellectual growth there? Peace? Stability? And all of this is squarely blamed on US.

American soldiers came down because Muslims war against Muslims. America may have ulterior motives. But if Muslims represent the unified ideal that I see many claim, we wouldn't have ISIS training children to behead people, we wouldn't have a SCHOOL blown up in Pakistan. I think everyone including non-Muslims would want a stable Muslim heartland. But we have Sunnis armed against Shias, and God knows who else!

Is an ideal state according to Muslims, where everyone doesn't speak a word or exchange ideas, or where a person is beheaded for an opinion? Or where children learn the Quran and nothing else? Let the Muslims create their ideal state.

[LearnIslam]

If we are talking about average run of the mill muslims, instead of the radicals, I don't see a huge difference here. It looks like simple tribalism to me. You can see it in Christians, Republicans, and many other in-groups.

Except none of those Christian or Republican groups have clerics who gain such support for their views as the head of Iran or Anjem Chaudary. Hitler considered himself a Christian, though hardly any Christians looked up to him, and he wasn't even a religious leader. In that sense, it becomes easy to pin down and route out Nazism. We are placed at an uncomfortable spot when cleric claim to be Muslim, but aren't really opposed by any major Muslim leader.

Doesn't that cry out something? I feel for Muslims too. I know a few, they are closely connected to their religion, have great family values and are soft spoken people. But on the stage who represents them is becoming a problem - because they are ones who are gathering crowd, cheers and a following, not the more moderate Muslim who probably lives up his faith better than Anjem Chaudhary.

[ardianto]

Its not just Anjem Chaurdary. There are a number of Muslim clerics, and they waste no moment in spreading their ideas. Yet, no one is supposed to speak of their religion in a Muslim country. So, does Islam allow expression or not? Or is it only allow expression of ideas if you are a Muslim?

Islam allows expression but should be in good manner, in accordance with adab (manner & etiquette). But expression that Anjem Choudary and other clerics like him have done are not in good manner. They are provocative and have no respect to other people.

According to adab, a Muslim must have respect to their neighbors and not doing something bad in the place where he/she is living.

In 70's, 80's, 90's, the West had no problem with Islam, but now?. Although I am not living in the West I always follow news about Muslims in the West through various sources including Muslim's sources. And my conclusion, these problems are caused by Muslim themselves.

But in another hand I hope people in the West can be objective too. Do not generalize all Muslims are bad just because some Muslims do something bad. I notice too that there are people in the West who try to make negative image about Islam, not just about Muslim extremists.

I hope people in the West can look at the tolerant Muslims too, not just look at the extremists.

:)

[ardianto]

Because Muslims look down on other religions - everyone is wrong, everyone's faith is evil, they are right. Is that what their religion teaches? I am reading the Quran, I don't see this train of thinking there.

Basically every religion teaches that only its religion is right. But it doesn't mean the believers of one religion must hate people outside their religion.

Is an ideal state according to Muslims, where everyone doesn't speak a word or exchange ideas, or where a person is beheaded for an opinion? Or where children learn the Quran and nothing else? Let the Muslims create their ideal state.

My ideal Islamic state is refer to the Golden Age when Muslims were very advanced in thought, not only in science and technology, but also in Islamic thought.

[Scimitar]

i been silent for too long...

...The Timeline


Wednesday 7 January, 11.30am local time


Two gunmen - Chérif Kouachi and his brother Saïd - storm the offices of the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris. They shoot dead several people including the magazine’s editor and some of its cartoonists. Five minutes later, they emerge on to the street and get into their car to escape. They drive north and exchange fire with a police vehicle. One officer, Ahmed Merabet, is wounded in the shootout; a Kouachi brother then runs up and shoots him in the head. In total 12 people are killed in the attacks.

Gunmen flee the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris. Photograph: Reuters TV/Reuters


Midday

The gunmen crash their car and hijack another vehicle, calmly forcing the driver out. They tell him: “If the media ask you anything, tell them it’s al-Qaida in Yemen.” They drive off from Paris’s 19th arrondissement in a grey Clio. Paris is put on the highest state of alert.

Paris is put on a high state of alert. Photograph: Bertrand Guay/AFP/Getty Images


6pm


The people of Paris gather on Place de la République for a vigil, one of many around France and the world.

Demonstrators gather at the Place de la Republique on Wednesday. Photograph: Christophe Ena/AP


Thursday 8 January, 8am


News of another attack in Paris, with a policewoman - 25-year-old trainee Clarissa Jean-Phillipe - shot dead in the southern suburb of Montrouge. Police initially believe the shooting is unrelated, but later say that the Montrouge gunmen and the Kouachi brothers knew each other

Police inspect the shooting scene in Montrouge, Paris, after a policewoman was shot dead. Photograph: Imago / Barcroft Media/PanoramiC


10.30am

Reports suggest the two suspects, heavily armed and wearing balaclavas, are seen driving north through Picardy. The pair rob a petrol station north-east of Paris. They drive off with assault rifles and rocket launchers visible in the back of their getaway car. A massive manhunt takes place in a large wooded area nearby.

French police special forces in Corcy, near Villers-Cotterets, north-east of Paris, where the two suspects were spotted in a gray Renault Clio. Photograph: Francois Nascimbeni/AFP/Getty Images


Friday 9 January, 8.10am


The gunmen resurface and hijack a grey Peugeot 206 in the village of Montagny-Sainte-Félicité. A village teacher spots the men as they seize her vehicle. She says they are carrying weapons, including a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. The pair dump the Renault Clio they were driving earlier after it runs out of petrol

SWAT police officers patrol in the village of Longpont, north-east of Paris, in search of the suspects. Photograph: Michel Spingler/AP


9am


There is a shoot-out between the suspects and police on the N2 motorway. No one is hurt. The brothers drive into an industrial estate in the small village of Dammartin-en-Goële, 40km north-east of Paris. They take refuge in a printing works. A massive police operation gets underway involving armed officers and helicopters

A police helicopter and the French Special Police Forces wait in fields surrounding an industrial estate where it is thought the suspects are holding a hostage. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images


11.30am


Police close in on the printing complex, Création Tendance Découverte. There are reports that one hostage is inside. According to French TV, he is a 26-year-old male. French special forces take up positions on the roof of surrounding buildings. Charles de Gaulle airport, 8kms away, is partly closed.

French gendarmes block the access to Dammartin-en-Goele. Photograph: Denis Charlet/AFP/Getty Images


1.30pm


Reports that an armed man has taken a hostage in a Jewish grocery store at Porte de Vincennes in Paris.

French police take position by the kosher grocery store in Saint-Mande, eastern Paris. Photograph: Eric Feferberg/AFP/Getty Images


2pm


Reports say the man suspected of killing a policewoman in Paris on Thursday is the hostage taker at the supermarket, and is holding around five people. Initial reports say people have been injured, but police later say this is not the case.

Special forces gather outside a kosher supermarket in east Paris. Photograph: Thomas Samson/AFP/Getty Images


2.30pm


Police name two people wanted in connection with the case. They are Amedy Coulibaly and Hayat Boumeddiene, the first of whom is reported as the supermarket hostage taker. He has a long criminal history.

Hayat Boumeddiene and Amedy Coulibaly. Photograph: Prefecture de police/EPA


Just before 5pm

Shots and explosions are heard at the siege at Dammartin-en-Goële, and heavily-armed counter-terror officers are seen moving in. The Charlie Hebdo gunmen are reported to have been killed and the hostage there freed.

Smoke rises as special forces enter the building on an industrial estate where suspects linked to the Charlie Hebdo killings were holding a hostage. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images


5.15pm


Loud bangs are heard at the site of the supermarket siege, with pictures showing some hostages being led out by police. Shortly afterwards, reports say the hostage takers at Dammartin-en-Goële, Chérif and Saïd Kouachi, were killed in the assault, as was the supermarket hostage taker, named in reports again as Amedy Coulibaly.


7pm

The French president, François Hollande, confirms that four hostages were killed and four wounded in the supermarket in Paris.

Special forces launch an assault on the kosher supermarket in Paris. Photograph: Gabrielle Chatelain/AFP/Getty Images


http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...imeline-events


...The Discrepencies


I find the Charlie Hebdo magazine and it's history itself suspicious and think it warrants further investigation as to the backgrounds and connections of the cartoonists themselves and the people who were supposed to be protecting them.


I mean c'mon... who could not have seen something like this happening or a strong possibility, why were they so determined on this path of antagonization, to the point of risking their own lives, the sake of free speech? or is there more to it that has to do with political/intelligence agency/connections/maneuverings.


Why did they not have more protection like say...armed police outside of it's newspaper headquarters when there were so many of them apparently in the offices considering the previous threats/attacks and the things that were being published in the magazine itself? Why is certain 'free speech' protected and other 'free speech' not at all?


Whoever is responsible it is good to look at ALL sides.


As far as the side of those who believe the MOSSAD and French Security Services were behind it you have such things as (haven't verified the accuracy of some of it):


quote:


Suspects left ID cards in getaway car.

There were police INSIDE the Charlie Hebdo offices BEFORE the attack took place.


Two officers who had been assigned to protect editor and cartoonist Stephane Charbonnier for the past several years came down from an upper floor and intercepted the gunmen. How is it that the police seemed so useless?


A journalist at Charlie Hebdo let the gunmen into the heavily protected offices.


Strangely, there were no armed police outside the offices.


There were heavily armed police in the vicinity and all over the centre of Paris.


"Outside the building, as the gunmen tried to flee in their Citroën van, three officers in a police patrol car intercepted them.


"Two suspects got out of the van...


"An officer ...ran toward the suspects. But the officer was shot and wounded by the suspects. He was executed with a shot to the head as he lay on the sidewalk."

After this policeman was 'shot' in the head with blanks, there is no sign of blood. (people are still arguing over this)


Google has been removing the videos that show this (possible) fake shot.


There are 3 different accounts of who this policeman was.


In one account he an officer who emerged from a police car.


In another account he is a policeman who came out of a police station.


And in a third account he is a policeman who was on a bicycle.


"After killing the officer, the gunmen returned to their car, shouting, 'We avenged the Prophet Muhammad,' the source said."

Mossad and the French security services appear to have had their posters printed in advance? (were they printed in advance? who printed them and how quickly were they dispersed?


There certainly is a wide ranging Je suis Charlie' movement taking place including CIA asset George Clooney and his wife taking part in it at the largely watched Golden Globes ceremony. Exactly who or what organizations are behind this movement?)


Amchai Stein, the deputy editor of Israeli IBA Channel 1, just happened to be at the scene and has been posting photos of the shooting.


In false flag attacks, the alleged terrorists allegedly leave behind identity cards or passports.


In false flag attacks, the authorities often give conflicting evidence.


In false flag attacks, the security services need 'patsies'.


Several of Hamyd's school friends have taken to Twitter saying he was in class with them at the time of the attack.


The Kouachi brothers have secular (non religious) backgrounds


nytimes


Said Kouachi, 34, and his brother Cherif, 32, were orphans who were brought up in a care home in Rennes in northern France.


The CIA and its friends like to mind-control orphans from children's homes to turn them into useful patsies.


The brothers had menial jobs such as pizza delivery man, and shop assistant.

What was the purpose of the 7 January 2015 attack on the offices of the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo by assets of Mossad? (IF that was the case or a possibility of it being the case)


Charlie Hebdo has reportedly made fun of the Mossad agent Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (Simon Elliot).


Mossad reportedly wants revenge for:


French MPs voting in favour of a Palestinian state.


France voting against Israel at the UN.

The objective of the attack is to turn public opinion in favour of Israel.


Does the shooting of the policeman look totally fake?


Twelve people, 10 journalists and two policemen, were reportedly killed.


Amchai Stein, the deputy editor of Israeli IBA Channel 1, just happened to be at the scene and has been posting photos of the shooting.


"Two black-hooded men entered the building with Kalashnikovs. A few minutes later we heard lots of shots," a witness told local TV station iTele, adding that the men were then seen fleeing the building.


The attackers spoke perfect French and reportedly said that they support the CIA militia called al Qaeda.


Charlie Hebdo's editor-in-chief Gerard Biard escaped the attack because he was in London.

The Telegraph's David Blair writes that the Paris gunmen showed advanced military skills:


'The gunmen who killed twelve people in and around the office of Charlie Hebco magazine in Paris acted with a skill and calmness that bears all the hallmarks of advanced military training." (this does not prove it to have been MOSSAD etc.. but one has to wonder how men with such advanced training could have escaped the nose of the French Security Services etc..)


http://aanirfan.blogspot.ca/2015/01/...cks-paris.html


So there are a few reasons why a certain portion of the people think or at least suspect as they do. Instead of making this personal (on either side) why not post why this scenario is suspect or post counter with some specifics as to why there are reasons to believe it is as the official narrative is saying based on the case so far.


I will post as well info I come across if it is reasonably and logically pointing to this being a genuine radicalized Muslim attack upon the offices of Charlie Hebco magazine. The magazine's history of receiving threats, having been subjected to attacks, the cartoonists needing police protection and published material that would have been extremely offensive to some is a case in point.


Just found this:


quote:


Israeli Newspaper Gets Waves Of Death Threats Over Cartoon – Threats That Came From Israel’s Jewish Right-Wing, Not From Radical Islam

Ha'aretz cartoon in memory of the Charlie Hebdo journalists murdered in Paris terror attack 1-11-2015 “We must do what the terrorists did to them in France, but at Haaretz." "Why is there no terror attack at Haaretz?” “Let the terrorists eliminate them." “With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France."

Above: The Ha'aretz cartoon. The caption reads, "10 journalists killed in attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, about 13 journalists killed last summer in attack on Gaza.”


The Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz ran a cartoon (pictured above) Friday in memory of the 10 Charlie Hebdo journalists killed in Wednesday’s terror attack.


The caption reads: “10 journalists killed in attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, about 13 journalists killed last summer in attack on Gaza.”


The cartoon was clearly not Ha’aretz’s own editorial cartoon and was instead one of several published in memory of the slain Paris cartoonists by the paper.


Nonetheless, Israel’s religious and political right-wing was quick to jump on the publication and to use the cartoon as a basis to pass a new law limiting free speech. And right-wing supporters were quick to call for the death of the Ha’aretz cartoonist and the paper’s editors and journalists.


According a report in Ha'aretz, Ronen Shoval, who is in charge of the right-wing Zionist Orthodox Habayit Hayehudi Party’s primary elections and a founder of the neo-fascist Im Tirtzu Movement – an Israeli court noted that Im Tirtzu fascist "similarities” – called on Facebook for a new law to be passed limiting free speech and blaming the Paris terror attack on “incitement” of Muslims by the cartoonists.


“If we have learned anything, it is that terror attacks are the result of an atmosphere of incitement.…Unfortunately, [Israel’s] attorney general will not do a thing, as usual. But determined lawmakers can change this situation,” Shoval reportedly wrote on Facebook.


His readers responded with a wave of death threats against Ha’aretz editors, journalists and the cartoonist.


“We must do what the terrorists did to them in France, but at Haaretz,” Facebook user Chai Aloni wrote.


“Why is there no terror attack at Haaretz?” Moni Ponte, another Facebook user, asked.


“Let the terrorists eliminate them,” Daniella Peretz added.


“With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France,” Miki Dahan wrote.


“They should die,” Danit Hajaj added.


“Haaretz is where the terrorists should have gone,” Riki Michael insisted.


“Death to traitors,” Moshe Mehager responded.


“I hope that terrorism reaches Haaretz as well,” Tuval Shalom prayed.


“With God’s help, [there will be] a Hamas operation that kills all of you [Ha’aretz journalists], like the journalists in France,” Ruti Hevroni warned.


Haaretz’s editorial staff responded by noting the absolute tone-deafness of the right-wing followers of Shoval.


“It is astonishing that in the framework of the global debate over freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and at a time when journalists have been killed over the existence of this right, Internet users are demanding that Haaretz completely censor a cartoon whose content they do not like. [The cartoon represents] the personal view of the cartoonist, just as the cartoons in Charlie Hebdo expressed the opinions of the cartoonists who worked there and were published in the name of freedom of expression, even though they were provocative and angered many people. The role of caricature, or of any other visual message, is to arouse thought and debate,” a spokesman for Haaretz’s editorial staff reportedly said.


Sunday afternoon Israel time, Shoval promised Ha’aretz that he would remove the offending comments from his Facebook page – but in a manner almost as completely tone deaf as many of his readers, Shoval linked his possible removal of those illegal comments to Ha’aretz removing the perfectly legal cartoon Shoval hates.


"Thank you for drawing my attention to the severe comments posted on my page. I will make sure to erase them quickly; as you said, I understand that incitement leads to murder. In the same breath, I ask you to remove the caricature immediately."


http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/fai...right-123.html


‘With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France': Death threats follow publication of cartoon in Israeli newspaper

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris last week Haaretz published a daring cartoon juxtaposing journalists* killed in Gaza by Israel during the brutal summer slaughter with the journalists killed at the office of the satirical magazine in Paris. This set off a chain reaction which ultimately led to calls for murdering Haaretz journalists after Ronen Shoval, founder of the neo-Zionist and proto-fascist Im Tirtzu movement, called for an investigation of the newspaper’s editors.


The offending cartoon by Noa Olchowski was published with a series of cartoons Haaretz ran in their Hebrew edition, a project by the site’s graphic designers to pay tribute to Charlie Hebdo cartoonists gunned down at the magazine’s Paris office. Including the hashtags #JeSuisCharlie and #JeSuisGaza it reads (original Hebrew):


10 journalists killed in attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris (top), about 13 journalists killed last summer in attack on Gaza (bottom).

Shoval, who is running in the primary election of the religious Zionist Habayit Hayehudi “Jewish Home” political party called for the investigation “on suspicion of ‘defeatist propaganda’ under Statute 103 of Israel’s penal code” on his Facebook page. Users of the social media site weighed in, Haaretz reported several of the threats:


A raft of death threats came in. “We must do what the terrorists did to them in France, but at Haaretz,” wrote Facebook user Chai Aloni. “Why is there no terror attack at Haaretz?” wrote Moni Ponte.


“Let the terrorists eliminate them,” wrote Daniella Peretz. “With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France,” wrote Miki Dahan. As Danit Hajaj put it, “They should die.”


“Haaretz is where the terrorists should have gone,” wrote Riki Michael. “Death to traitors,” added Moshe Mehager. “I hope that terrorism reaches Haaretz as well,” wrote Tuval Shalom. “With God’s help, [there will be] a Hamas operation that kills all of you, like the journalists in France,” wrote Ruti Hevroni.


Haaretz’s editorial staff said the cartoons published in the project were a personal gesture by the newspaper’s designers, not the editorial board, and this is how they were presented.

After the recent alarming death threats a spokesperson for Haaretz’s editorial staff had this to say:


It is astonishing that in the framework of the global debate over freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and at a time when journalists have been killed over the existence of this right, Internet users are demanding that Haaretz completely censor a cartoon whose content they do not like.”

Shoval and his Im Tirtzu movement are no strangers to controversial cartoons.

Fan site of “Hamila Ha-Achrona” (“The Last Word”) cartoon captures Im Tirzu caricature of New Israel Fund president Naomi Chazan.

Shoval and his Im Tirtzu movement are no strangers to controversial cartoons.


After initiating a smear campaign described as a “witchhunt” against New Israel Fund’s, Naomi Chazan depicting her wearing a horn, a popular fan site for an Army Radio talk show published Im Tirtzu’s caricature of Chazan as the devil being stabbed by Herzl himself.


Im Tirtzu blamed Chazen and NIF for the results of the Goldstone report and the ensuing “deligitimization” of Israel after Operation Cast Lead in 2008: “92 percent of [the] negative references to the IDF in the Goldstone report originating with Israeli sources came from organizations sponsored by NIF [New Israeli Fund].”


* 15 journalists and media workers were killed during operation “Protective Edge,” the Israeli government deliberately targets and murders journalists.


http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/journa....WajY9zpF.dpuf


...and there's more...


(special thanks to Sarah (a non Muslim) from Vigilant forum for sharing this info)

further, here are some comments from non Muslims at vf:

police officer supposedly shot down; where is the blood? not a single drop, whilst 'pinned to the ground'
after being shot, after getting hit by a high-calibre automatic rifle. highly doubtfull


headshot at 12 seconds mark, but no movement of the head at all - impossible after getting close-struck
by a high-calibre rifle. neither is there a single blood mark. not one. no blood that surrounds him,
nothing. impossible. such a high calibre should leave brain, skull and blood all over the place in a significant spread.


neither is there a muzzle flash of the high-calibre gun. not once, but there is a significant suspicious 'smoke' 'plume'
that looks very much like that of shooting blanks.


the 8 seconds full view on the officer after this event, not a single blood drop visible. not from the point blank shot
to the head, not from the supposed shots to the belly or leg, nothing. no way.


this is acting.


and even more;


they supposedly found their ID-cards??????????????????????? really?


they LEFT the ID-cards in the black car when they ditched it in the middle of paris? who does that? what terrorist goes out for a terrorist attack, takes his id card with him, leaves it out of his wallet in the car, then goes on a rampage, and leave it inside the car? nobody, that's who.


I'm calling BS on lots of this. I can't say nobody was killed in the office, i wasn't there. But the oddities are plentyful instantaneously.

...

One of the hitmen forgot/left his ID-card in his runaway car for the police to pick up. What are the odds ... Doesn't seem like something that would happen to what appears to be two professional assassins. Smells like Mossad / Pentagon all over the place.

Even the non Muslim truthers know what the real deal is here... this was a set up.


Scimi

[Pygoscelis]

Is this going to spawn another 9/11 Truther like movement?

[Scimitar]

bro, it already has... just check out the truther forums all over the web. They're exposing all the discrepancies on the charlie hebdo shootings and more. it's been linked to the israeli Secret Services (Mossad). Apparently, they're (Mossad) revelling at the idea of a repeat of the charlie hebdo shootings in the Israeli Haaretz paper now... if it happens, remember this post.

Scimi

[Pygoscelis]

bro, it already has... just check out the truther forums all over the web. They're exposing all the discrepancies on the charlie hebdo shootings and more. it's been linked to the israeli Secret Services (Mossad). Apparently, they're (Mossad) revelling at the idea of a repeat of the charlie hebdo shootings in the Israeli Haaretz paper now... if it happens, remember this post.

Scimi

I enjoy a good conspiracy theory. This should be fun to watch if it does get popular.

[Scimitar]

Grab your popcorn and keep it handy eh? :D

[Sojourn]

The question I have is whether such an action would be Islamically justified *if* considered by a group of Muslims?

[Pygoscelis]

The question I have is whether such an action would be Islamically justified *if* considered by a group of Muslims?

I expect you will get different answers from different Muslims, even on this board. We have some here who come across as very peaceful, almost like pacifists, and others who actually once wrote on this very board that they would like to see homosexuals hunted down and killed. It is a wide spectrum, as in most groups.

[Scimitar]

Muslims condemn violence except in acts of self defence and for the protection of their property or if they are stopped by tyrants from freely practicing their faith.

That's it.

All else is opinion...and opinions are like.... yeah. U get it.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

The question I have is whether such an action would be Islamically justified *if* considered by a group of Muslims?

No.

Scimi

[greenhill]

I posted earlier but can't seem to find it... so I'll post again.. (if I can remember all the points)

Freedom of speech came about (if I remember correctly) as a result of ensuring those in power do not have control over information so that they may cover up their blunders. To stop the 'oppressed' from voicing out their dissatisfaction and somewhat jeopardizing chances of remaining in power.

It is a good mechanism to have a check and balance. To report matters that are of concern to the public.

Freedom of speech does not include the 'right' of anyone to hurl insults and insensitive comments just because 'WE CAN'. That is an abuse of the 'freedom of speech'. That is almost like freedom to incite hatred.

In Islam, it is said that if we have nothing good to say about a person, then it is better not to say anything at all. If someone provokes you you can forgive or you can retaliate. There is only so much that we can forgive before retaliation becomes the reality.

Knowing this, and knowing what the muslims truly feel about pictures etc, why would anyone deliberately shove it in the faces of the community that feels this to be inappropriate? To almost challenge the entire muslim community around the world by saying, 'Here are the pictures, what are you going to do about it?' Oh, you are quiet.... here's another lot... and some more.... until somebody snaps, and then rather than saying 'Sorry,....' a more arrogant stand is made by saying that they will not tolerate bullies and will publish more!

What are they hoping to achieve? What is their desired result? Do they have to do this? Will it make the world a better place? . . . . No! They are just wanting to add more fuel to the fire and put the muslim nation at odds with the rest of the world. I believe that is their desired intention.

No blame is put on those aggressors who deliberately stoke the fire. When it explodes in their face they run away crying that they were treated badly. Boo hoo.

I don't agree with the violence, but when people are insensitive to others, we can expect a reaction. Who is to blame? No pictures, no reaction. Simple.


:peace:

[Pygoscelis]

Knowing this, and knowing what the muslims truly feel about pictures etc, why would anyone deliberately shove it in the faces of the community that feels this to be inappropriate? To almost challenge the entire muslim community around the world by saying, 'Here are the pictures, what are you going to do about it?' Oh, you are quiet.... here's another lot... and some more.... until somebody snaps, and then rather than saying 'Sorry,....' a more arrogant stand is made by saying that they will not tolerate bullies and will publish more!

What are they hoping to achieve? What is their desired result? Do they have to do this? Will it make the world a better place? . . . . No! They are just wanting to add more fuel to the fire and put the muslim nation at odds with the rest of the world. I believe that is their desired intention.

I suspect that you have it exactly right. Rightly or wrongly, Muslims have the image in many peoples' minds of being violent and bloodthirsty reactionaries. There are some people who want this image to persist. Showing that people will go on a murderous rampage at the sight of mere cartoons is a good way to accomplish that. They rely on the human flaw of seeing people in groups, and rely on decent non-violent muslims not standing up and saying the rampage is not Islam. If we instead call them on this, they will not be able to make their point and more of us in the west will see Islam as peaceful instead of violent. You have a golden opportunity here really. I am glad to see people using it.

[Abz2000]

It looks like a false flag, and smells like a false flag, wanna stoop down and scoop a bit on your finger to see if it tastes like one?

Considering hollande's record low approval ratings on the day, the clumsy I.D card, the suicided police commissioner on the same night as he was about to complete and submit his report, puppet abbass' posturing with hollande trying to make the people of palestine lose their tawakkul on God and turn into a secular state in submission to kufr jurisdiction while rejecting sovereignty of Almighty God and accepting satanic security council sovereignty.
Hollande's hug of abbas and cold handshake with "uninvited" netanyahu trying to push himself to the front of the bus to the rally.
Hollande's attack on real Islam while embracing a weak secular concept of palestine, the world leaders' confusion as to whether to sacrifice faith for a fake peace attempt.
And the disappearance of the girl hayyat who probably knew too much and claim she "escaped" from under the noses of a multi billion dollar snooping apparatus (easy way to explain a missing witness).
And the subsequent attempt to turn the anti-zionist tide in france around via mindless (and grave) insults in the name of "freedom".

However, let us not forget the only real and valid law on earth.

Just because a troll tries to confuse Musa by saying: "ya wanna be a tyrant in the land and not set things straight?" we should remember that all straightens out when we submit to God's Laws.
Otherwise mankind loses in this world and the next.
Nationalist laws are racist laws that will never reconcile and will always be at odds until we subject them to God's universal Law.
The Quran and guidance of His final Messenger.

Here's a video i put together on the subject a few years back:


And here's a 2 part video of the alternative "democracy":


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgmGjdGZBPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utIm3QosRzM

Nice holiday vids, is that Noyabari Bangladesh or Noyabari Leicester; must be Leicester as there's no broadband in Noyabari Bangla, in fact there's no electricity!

Since you ask - despite seeing all those little Bengali kids on the boat, and since you were interested enough to google earth/maps the term,

we use solar panels and 3g

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/abz2000123/Screenshot_2015-01-14-10-51-53_zpsk0plg3xq.png

The boat was in the middle pond.

And we had the option of unlimited broadband at the town bazar here:

But decided it was foolish and haram to sing and dance while the devil piped tunes of falsehood, and feel like ur almost getting raped, seemed like they tried to make it a requirement so i sold that too:

The piece of hardware cradled in my hands is a portable fully automatic Challenge Xtreme with an 18v battery bank

[Scimitar]

I loved reading your post bro Abz.

Assalaam alaikum bro

Scimi

[Abz2000]

I loved reading your post bro Abz.

Assalaam alaikum bro

Scimi

Wa'alaikumussalam wr wb bro!!!

Did you end up marrying her?

[Futuwwa]

Its not just Anjem Chaurdary. There are a number of Muslim clerics, and they waste no moment in spreading their ideas. Yet, no one is supposed to speak of their religion in a Muslim country. So, does Islam allow expression or not? Or is it only allow expression of ideas if you are a Muslim?

Islam can neither allow nor disallow anything. Islam is a set of beliefs, not an entity capable of agency.

[Futuwwa]

Is this going to spawn another 9/11 Truther like movement?

If you can imagine it, there's a conspiracy theory about it somewhere on the Internet.

[Futuwwa]

The question I have is whether such an action would be Islamically justified *if* considered by a group of Muslims?

Never! Haaretz must never die!

[Scimitar]

Abz, this summer in sha Allah. Preparations are being made etc... hopefully this year it all works out. Im investing trust in Allah subhana wata'aala and working towards making thid happen.

Its been tough bro. Long distance and all that. But alhamdulillah patience is a virtue im learning with time being my teacher.

[syed_z]

I condemn the school shootings that were going on (mostly in America) last year (which has absolutely nothing to do with muslims) and I condemn the media for pointing at "He was a muslim" whenever a muslim does something bad, and failing to do so when others do the same or similar vile acts. I equally condemn people who try to hide the connection to Islam, or any other ideology, when the people doing these evil actions clearly state they do it in that ideology's name. Like it or not, people have found justification in their minds through your religion. That is when people of that ideology or religion need to stand up and say "no way. Our ideology does not support that, and you are not one of us. You have perverted our ideology and you are trying to slander it by claiming you act in its name". I have seen this more than ever before by muslims in reaction to this attack in Paris, and that is awesome.

That anybody would make excuses for murdering people because of a cartoon is abhorent.

JE SUIS CHARLIE

The Muslims response, me and many of our Muslims brothers and sisters here who condemn the killing have already done it and I believe that is the best we will do but mind you we will never say 'Je Suis Charlie' as Charlie did make and his magazine continues to ridicule at our Prophet Muhammad and all the Prophets (peace be upon them all) whom we're supposed to have utmost respect for and love more than even our parents and that is an evidence of our Faith in Allah (swt).

For you it might be very light thing but those who are upholders of the religion of One True God, it is abhorent to make fun of Prophets as much as it is abhorent that anyone should be killed like that. By you saying you are Charlie and claim to be a true follower of Jesus (peace be upon him) doesn't make any sense to me because that mag did make fun of him (peace be upon him) as well.

I can love my mother and certainly not the one who disrespects her, then how can I be the one who disrespects someone who is supposed to be dearer to me than my mother, i.e. Prophet Muhammad (saw), the Mercy for All.

Je ne suis pas charlie!

Je suis un musulman

[LearnIslam]

Islam can neither allow nor disallow anything. Islam is a set of beliefs, not an entity capable of agency.

Really? I thought the believes are what set what is allowed or not allowed. So is there a place in Islam for expressing ideas contrary to the Quran? There doesn't seem to be, and that is why the Muslim world is being over taken by self-righteous clerics and wars. We all have what we believe is the truth - all religions, and also the atheists.

The question is if I think Islam is a particular way, and others think Islam is a particular way. Why, for all, my reason could say that almost everything in Islam today is not the will of the Creator or His message. What method exists to validate either of us?

[LearnIslam]

The Muslims response, me and many of our Muslims brothers and sisters here who condemn the killing have already done it and I believe that is the best we will do but mind you we will never say 'Je Suis Charlie' as Charlie did make and his magazine continues to ridicule at our Prophet Muhammad and all the Prophets (peace be upon them all) whom we're supposed to have utmost respect for and love more than even our parents and that is an evidence of our Faith in Allah (swt).

I don't think Charlie Hebdo did those cartoons in order to provoke anyone. There were cartoons about Virgin Mary, and Rabbis. Its understandable that Muslims got offended by it. But nobody protested, no Muslim voice came forward and said they found it offensive for so and so reasons.

Instead, its AFTER the terror attack takes place that all these reasons come out. So, that is exactly why I am asking this question for the third time : In what way does Islam say people should make an objection?

You see, there doesn't seem to be a method of discussion or dialogue in the Muslim world, which is why its being over taken my war machines and leaders like Anjem Chaudary and the head of Iran.

[LearnIslam]

According to adab, a Muslim must have respect to their neighbors and not doing something bad in the place where he/she is living.

In 70's, 80's, 90's, the West had no problem with Islam, but now?. Although I am not living in the West I always follow news about Muslims in the West through various sources including Muslim's sources. And my conclusion, these problems are caused by Muslim themselves.

But in another hand I hope people in the West can be objective too. Do not generalize all Muslims are bad just because some Muslims do something bad. I notice too that there are people in the West who try to make negative image about Islam, not just about Muslim extremists.

Did the Muslims have adab when they invaded Iran? Or tore the land of the Indians into 'theirs' and 'others' (Pakistan and India)? When I see leaders in the Muslims world - not one of them supports a progressive thinking. You say Anjem doesn't have adab. Does the head of Iran have adab? Which Muslim leader according to you has this value of adab?

Basically every religion teaches that only its religion is right. But it doesn't mean the believers of one religion must hate people outside their religion.

Thank you. Please point this out in the Quran to all the glorious Muslim leaders who run terror organizations, killing people around them and hindering education which would actually be beneficial to their children.

My ideal Islamic state is refer to the Golden Age when Muslims were very advanced in thought, not only in science and technology, but also in Islamic thought.

What is "Islamic thought"? And which country, leader or person emulates it today?

[LearnIslam]

[QUOTES]I hope people in the West can look at the tolerant Muslims too, not just look at the extremists. [/QUOTE]

But the most important leaders are extremists - and they might blow my house tomorrow. I would fear sending my kids to school because the extremist Muslims would blow it up!

They don't support any speak or act against their version of Islam. Do you see how UNCOMFORTABLE you are making the native people of every country that is not Muslim? Name one prominent leader of the Muslim world whose voice goes above the extremists? Zakir Naik, Anjem Chaudary, the head of Iran - all support evil acts, it wouldn't be so well funded otherwise.

Muslims are the ones giving this image to Islam. Not the French, not the Americans, not Charlie Hebdo. The American and NATO involvement in the Muslim heartland is caused by irresponsibility on the part of MUSLIMS of different factions warring against each other and hoping the Americans will save them. Of course if they don't, hell be to the Americans! Right?

If Muslims protested the coming of American and NATO troops how could ANYONE blame them for air strikes, or ground action? This is Muslims inviting them, and then getting upset. The Muslim world has irresponsible, myopic leaders whose thought and lifestyle is contrary to the wish of the Creator.

[Abz2000]

[QUOTES]I hope people in the West can look at the tolerant Muslims too, not just look at the extremists.

But the most important leaders are extremists - and they might blow my house tomorrow. I would fear sending my kids to school because the extremist Muslims would blow it up!

They don't support any speak or act against their version of Islam. Do you see how UNCOMFORTABLE you are making the native people of every country that is not Muslim? Name one prominent leader of the Muslim world whose voice goes above the extremists? Zakir Naik, Anjem Chaudary, the head of Iran - all support evil acts, it wouldn't be so well funded otherwise.

Muslims are the ones giving this image to Islam. Not the French, not the Americans, not Charlie Hebdo. The American and NATO involvement in the Muslim heartland is caused by irresponsibility on the part of MUSLIMS of different factions warring against each other and hoping the Americans will save them. Of course if they don't, hell be to the Americans! Right?

If Muslims protested the coming of American and NATO troops how could ANYONE blame them for air strikes, or ground action? This is Muslims inviting them, and then getting upset. The Muslim world has irresponsible, myopic leaders whose thought and lifestyle is contrary to the wish of the Creator.

I'm not exactly sure what you were alluding to with the last comment but would like to clarify that Muslims did protest it and that they were vilified as terrorists and killed in drone strikes, anwar's 16 year old son was also murdered later and they claimed he was 21 and planning attacks.
He had put aside his degree in engineering and earning a big buck just to warn you.



Too many RAND zombies are getting their facts all wrong.

This is Muslims inviting them, and then getting upset.*

Dunno if you refer to the people or the tin pot democratic dictator puppets, when we do speak out and stand against them, you shouldn't call us takfiri militants.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9FDHAd3W7A

[BeTheChange]

I love Sheikh Anwar Al Awlaki may Allah swa give him the highest place in Jannah Ameen amazing lecture jazahka Allah for sharing - i haven't listened to this one before. May Allah swa reward you and increase your emaan Ameen.

[Kung Fu]

In no way was the murders justified. Our beloved prophets were always ridiculed and ridiculed badly but yet they stayed patient and strong in front of such rude behaviour. We must also stay patient and strong and fight back with intellect. We have God and that's all we need for He is the best of Planners. Let them bring their evidences and critiques for it shall amount to nothing if we act like real Muslims.

If the Muslims today weren't so weak minded and instead directed their anger towards dialectical discussions and the gathering of knowledge, we wouldn't be such easy targets for the unbelievers. Cartoons and words cannot hurt our beloved prophets but yet Muslims go crazy foaming from the mouth with no clear knowledge of what Islam really is all about.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another Opinion piece.

CHARLIE HEBDO: SEEING THE BIGGER PICTURE

Following the shooting at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo's offices last week, the magazine have today released their first issue since the attack; opting to depict a caricature of Prophet Muhammad yet again as front page. Karen Jayes, South African author and member of CAGE Africa, explores the tragic killings in Paris as a window on how the War on Terror works, looking at this attack in the wider context and how moderation and accountability can make it stop.

The 10 satirists, security guard and janitor who worked at the offices of Charlie Hebdo did not deserve to die. It is natural human nature to be repelled by these acts – and we are. But we know that Cherif and Said Kouachi do not represent the world’s over 1.6 billion or more Muslims. And we also know from a cursory glance at the magazine’s previous covers – one of which depicts the kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls as pregnant, wailing yard girls – that Charlie Hebdo does not qualify as mainstream media, as mainstream media want us to believe.

So framing this as an attack on our freedom of expression, as the politicians and media have spun it to be, is problematic for many reasons.

Insulting the world’s largest religious group given the current global crisis that is a Western-led War on Terror with its hallmarks of drone strikes, rendition, interventions, torture and detention-without-trial of Muslims, which all fuel extremism, is not deserving of death, no - but given the dynamics of the war, it is a particularly cruel, and some might say unwise, thing to do. More on this later.

But after considering deeply what is happening in the world, Charlie Hebdo’s consistent denigrating of the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings be upon him), is similar in some ways to the anti-Semitic cartoons of Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer between 1927-1932, which drummed up fear and hatred of Jews in the run up to the Holocaust.

Secondly, good satire ridicules the powerful, those who by their very position must be held accountable – simply because, by accepting responsibility, they’ve agreed to it. Satire that ridicules religious icons – not even a month ago, Charlie Hebdo ran a cartoon of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus (peace be upon him), who was depicted with a pig nose – or ‘humour’ that denigrates those who are already marginalised, is just poor taste. More than that, this kind of no-holds-barred ridicule paves way for a society that lacks respect for divinity and empathy, where everything and anything is fair game. Nothing is sacred – and cruel insults take on the machismo of back slaps between friends.

Moreover, the freedom of expression argument has an iffy barometer, especially in France. As part of its ‘internal security’ enactments passed in 2003, it is against the law in France to ridicule the national flag and anthem. French rapper Monsieur R faced prison charges in 2006 for insulting Napoleon and Charles de Gaulle, while in the same year rapper Joestarr had his rap song against then President Nicolas Sarkozy banned. Sarkozy, president until 2012, ordered the firing of the director of Paris Match because he published photos of his wife with another man in New York.

While laws protecting the republic are heavy, laws protecting France’s Muslim population (which make up less than 20% of the total) are not. In a law banning religious symbols in public, it is illegal for Muslim girls to express their religious beliefs by wearing the hijab (headscarf) to school. In 2005, a French court ruled in favour of the French Catholic Church and banned an ad demeaning the Last Supper, stating that the display was "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs". But two years later a French court rejected a case brought by two French Muslim associations against Charlie Hebdo, for reprinting cartoons originally published by a Danish magazine that denigrated the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

This is not even mentioning the duplicitous nature of France’s allies, the United States and Britain when it comes to freedom of expression. Two examples: in 2003, three journalists - Taras Protsyuk, 35, Jose Couso, 37, and Tarek Ayyoub, 35- were killed in Iraq when US forces targeted the Palestine Hotel where many journalists were staying. And more recently in the United Kingdom, events in Paris have facilitated the acceleration of the Communications Data Bill which will strengthen the government’s surveillance powers by mandating internet service providers to collect and retain data about their users, including emails and other communications, at any time and without a warrant.

There is nothing to prevent this draconian piece of counter-terrorism legislation from being used, not only against Muslims broadly, but further down the line and given a couple of years, against human rights activists or environmentalists that are particularly irksome to governments. This dovetailing of global counter-terrorism legislation with the political agendas of power-hungry governments is already alive and well, according to numerous reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Kenya, and Ethiopia amongst others. As Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said: “What happens to the Muslim community, sure enough, sooner or later, happens to the rest of us."

Make no mistake: I am not defending the killers. Their acts are criminal. But they have taken place within a global context that cannot be ignored – and ‘othering’ those who have been alleged to be responsible without more closely examining the complicity of the powerful in producing men like these – as we know from our very own history – only further polarizes society and leads us down a path blinded by moral passion and conflict, where only worse decisions are made. Violence begets violence and so it goes on.

Who knows where this will lead us. As we mourn and feel the aftershocks of Paris, France arms its streets with 10 000 soldiers and Britain rushes through anti-terrorism laws that will strengthen airport stop-and-search and passport confiscation powers that harken back to the worst days of South African apartheid.

But we must not take our eyes off the Middle East: the continued US drones strikes in Pakistan and the Yemen, which between them have killed almost 4000 people, nearly a half of them children, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism; the bombardment of Iraq under false evidence extracted through torture that there were weapons of mass destruction has left a country stunned and paralysed with over one million dead and nobody accountable; the continued crippling occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by Israeli forces, a bombardment last year ironically named Operation Protective Edge, which left 2100 Palestinians, among them 495 children, dead; and the continued bombing of Iraq and Syria and lack of access for international human rights organisations as winter approaches and people starve.

Now is the time for critical thinking, moderation and calm heads. The cyclical violence that feeds the War on Terror and the security and media establishments that benefit from it, needs to be broken. At its source is the prison camp of Guantanamo Bay – still not closed 13 years after opening in violation of international law and still not having brought any admissible court evidence as to what exactly happened on 9/11. Replicating Gitmo are the over 100 black sites around the world where Muslims have been rendered, tortured, and accused of being enemy combatants with no legal rights and in violation of the Geneva Convention. In the War on Terror, extremists are the products of Western foreign policy, while the detention centres are its factories.

The CIA Torture Report, radically redacted and shortened to a paltry 525 pages out of 6000 and then smothered by events in Paris, detailed how men were humiliated, subjected to positional torture, blinding light, simulated burials, waterboarding, wall-slamming, rape, - the list goes on… in order to provide inadmissible data to be used as fuel for the War on Terror. It has left out crucial facts like names and places, and the details of women and children detainees. This Report and its hidden contents cannot, and - thanks to a new crowd-funded investigation by the Bureau for Investigative Journalism and The Rendition Project - will not, be allowed to disappear.

It is crucial to understand the nuanced context in which events like the tragedy in Paris have unfolded. Nothing happens in isolation, and nothing is ever what it seems.

The Quran exhorts believers to battle evil with something better, and the pen is recommended over the sword. Nothing captures this better than the example of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) who constantly repelled insults with gentleness and forgiveness. There is the account of a woman who used to throw garbage at him every time he walked passed her house. Instead of walking another way, he would continue to walk past her house and she would continue to throw trash at him. One day, she was not there. The Prophet (pbuh) was concerned and enquired about her. He found out she was ill. So the Prophet (pbuh) went to her house, fed her and cleaned her house until she was well again. She was so overwhelmed by this that she embraced Islam. Muhammed (pbuh) was, and always will be, untouched by insult.

This is because gentleness and goodness will always win over evil. Take the example of Lassana Bathily, the Muslim employee at the Kosher grocery store Hyper Cacher who saved several people in the aftermath of the shootings by hiding them in a meat freezer. He was held on the floor for 1.5 hours by police simply because he seemed to fit the police’s racial profile of a suspect and because he was Muslim (even as white people were allowed to flee, though they could have been suspects too). Despite this, Bathily told French TV: “We are brothers. It's not a question of Jews, of Christians or of Muslims. We're all in the same boat, we have to help each other to get out of this crisis."

http://www.cageuk.org/article/charlie-hebdo-seeing-bigger-picture

[ardianto]

Did the Muslims have adab when they invaded Iran? Or tore the land of the Indians into 'theirs' and 'others' (Pakistan and India)? When I see leaders in the Muslims world - not one of them supports a progressive thinking. You say Anjem doesn't have adab. Does the head of Iran have adab? Which Muslim leader according to you has this value of adab?

Islam spreaded in my country, Indonesia, through unarmed civilians. First by traders from Gujarat, and later by immigrants from Yemen. There was no bloodshed, there was no destruction. Now you can visit ancient Hindu and Buddhist temples that still maintained well as heritage from period before Islam. Muslims in my place have no problem with it.

So, it's not true if Islam always spread through sword although indeed, in some other areas Islam spreaded by military expedition.

Anjem is lucky. He lives in country where native Christians are tolerant enough toward Muslims, more than Muslims toward non-Muslims in Muslim countries. I've seen a video that show Anjem gave 'Islamic' speech in front of a Cathedral, and nothing happen. I can't imagine what would happen if a Christian gave Christian speech in front of a mosque.

Indeed, Anjem and some Muslim leader are bad in adab. But it doesn't mean all Muslim leaders are intolerant and provocative. There are many Muslim leader who tolerant. If you don't know, it's because you just focus to the extremist

Thank you. Please point this out in the Quran to all the glorious Muslim leaders who run terror organizations, killing people around them and hindering education which would actually be beneficial to their children.

You're welcome. Those leaders will not listen to me. So I choose to talk to ordinary Muslims people. I hope it can make the people realize that those leaders have taught the wrong things, and later they will leave those leaders alone.

What is "Islamic thought"? And which country, leader or person emulates it today?

During the Golden Age Muslims were advanced not only in science and technology but also in "thought". There were many books about relationship between human and Allah, about Islamic philosophy, that had written in that time although later many books were destroyed by Mongol invader.

Nowadays "Islamic thought" is more than about how Muslims can live in the modern world. Sharia banking and finance, rediscovery of prophetic medicine, are the product of this thought.

But the most important leaders are extremists - and they might blow my house tomorrow. I would fear sending my kids to school because the extremist Muslims would blow it up!

Extremist might blow my house too. They kill not only non-Muslims, but also Muslims who do not stand with them.

When I was young in late of 80's me and my friends found a bag. We opened the bag to know who was the owner, and then we gave back that bag to the owner. Nowadays, if people found a bag, they would not dare to open it. They would call police, then police call bomb squad, because they worry about bomb.

They don't support any speak or act against their version of Islam. Do you see how UNCOMFORTABLE you are making the native people of every country that is not Muslim? Name one prominent leader of the Muslim world whose voice goes above the extremists? Zakir Naik, Anjem Chaudary, the head of Iran - all support evil acts, it wouldn't be so well funded otherwise.

I always smile and greet my Christian neighbor when we meet. I have good relationship with my non-Muslims friends and relatives (some people in my mother family are Christians). So what you mean with I make those non-Muslim people feel uncomfortable?. :)

Okay, okay, I understand what you mean. I know that there are non-Muslim people who feel threatened by Muslims. But actually it's because they too generalize Muslims. They see Muslims only from the worst Muslims, and do not look at the other Muslims who are tolerant.

Extremism, radicalism, terrorism, have become big problem in the Muslim world too. Many Muslim leaders have spoken out against it, and they try to eradicate this problem. But again, you don't know it.

Brother, let me tell you the reason why non-Muslims should not generalize all Muslims are extremist. The method that used by the extremist to brainwash Muslim people is telling them that the non-Muslims are enemies of Muslims. Contrary what the tolerant Muslim leaders say that Muslims and non-Muslims can co-exist peacefully. If non-Muslims always generalize all Muslims are terrorists, then the ordinary Muslim people would think that the extremist leaders were right, and then they would join extremist group.

So, if we want to build peace, we should cooperate.

Muslims are the ones giving this image to Islam. Not the French, not the Americans, not Charlie Hebdo. The American and NATO involvement in the Muslim heartland is caused by irresponsibility on the part of MUSLIMS of different factions warring against each other and hoping the Americans will save them. Of course if they don't, hell be to the Americans! Right?

Yes, the bad image of Islam is caused by Muslims themselves. But non-Muslims should be wise too through not generalizing that all Muslims hate non-Muslims, all Muslims want to take over the world, etc.

If Muslims protested the coming of American and NATO troops how could ANYONE blame them for air strikes, or ground action? This is Muslims inviting them, and then getting upset. The Muslim world has irresponsible, myopic leaders whose thought and lifestyle is contrary to the wish of the Creator.

Regarding to Iraq invasion on Kuwait, Muslim world actually wanted that problem resolved by Muslims themselves. But Saudi Arabia already invited US to lead the war.

Why many people in the Muslim world feel suspicious toward US government?. It because US has image as "Global Police" that build by US govt themselves. They are known as government that often force other countries (not only Muslim countries) to follow what they want.

But I know, not every American agree with this US govt habit. I know, there are many American people who can respect other nations.

[LearnIslam]

I'm not exactly sure what you were alluding to with the last comment but would like to clarify that Muslims did protest it and that they were vilified as terrorists and killed in drone strikes, anwar's 16 year old son was also murdered later and they claimed he was 21 and planning attacks.
He had put aside his degree in engineering and earning a big buck just to warn you.

Too many RAND zombies are getting their facts all wrong.

My Creator has one faith with has been hijacked countless times by people of different ethnicity. Someone told me to look at 'moderate' Muslims, but all the clerics are extremists who gain popularity? Why? Because when someone converts to Islam you all are happy, when someone converts from Islam? The Creator's faith is one don't forget, and don't hijack it! For the regimes religion is a game of numbers.

What debate is required? My point is right before you - the wars in the Muslim world. Muslims killing Muslims. What he said of the Iraq war reiterates what I just said - irresponsibility from part of leaders in the Muslim heartland giving the opportunity to evil to do what they want.

Who cares about his talk of battle with the Romans or the Persians? Neither you, nor your enemies represent the Truth of my Creator.

You all talk like you know my Creator, but you have hijacked his message on Earth so far and create war over this. And if the Truth did concern you actually, you wouldn't concerned about Islam spreading in the West or East! You wouldn't revel in hearing the victories of war against the Persians or the Romans, for they will read in their scriptures and revel in destroying you all too.

I ask you again: Which leader or people in the Muslim world represent Islamic value? If there is clarity of this, there will be no multiple leaders, no wars between Shias and Sunnis. Blame no one but the "Muslims" - they have evil and useless leaders, who don't care about the prosperity of their people, intellectual pursuits, education and the true glory of civilization. The leaders of the Muslim heartland have hijacked the Creator's message on Earth.

Dunno if you refer to the people or the tin pot democratic dictator puppets, when we do speak out and stand against them, you shouldn't call us takfiri militants.

I refer to the people. From the first few sentences - he says a Muslim isn't a blind follower. Now is the questioning method is used to learn the Quran? If I learn the Quran soundly and felt it was different from the cleric of my state, would I be able to object the demonic policies? Each and every state leader of a Muslim country has hijacked the faith of the Creator to make a society of their own.

Don't damage the faith of my Creator into Sunni, Shia, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Ashkenazi, Ahmediyya, Sufi, Sephardic, Calvinist, Mormon etc. And don't you claim to even KNOW the truth, for if you do, you speak in vain.

By what method are you to verify the events that happened or which is the word of the Creator? Whether you are Sunni or Shia or Jew or Christian or something else?

The sword is not His symbol, Arabic is not His language, His symbol is not the Roman cross, His symbol is not the Gun. If you represent the faith of the Creator, you are not "Muslim" to feel happy to speak of victory against the Persians or the Romans. The Persians followed Zoroastrianism, and you killed them.

Allow others to practice in peace. Those who have given the Devil children (Imams who preach hate and use the name of my Creator in vain), positions of power in this Earth are their MANY followers. True?

The brilliance of my Creator can dim the radiance of a thousand suns. The dimensions of Creation which we know not of still exist and run.

The Arabs have hijacked it claiming they know the truth and they have created a Hell on Earth by making everyone uncomfortable by spreading every where with wars. This Muslim region has now turned against itself because it doesn't represent a set of values conducive to growth - opinions are hated, and people are easily killed for it, there is no forgiveness in their hearts. Tell me, with all things the same, how you reasons this (what you understand as Islam) and nothing else is the truth?

I would say the Americans are better. They may have evil, vested interests, but they don't use the name of my Creator in vain. Now stop troubling the people of other lands and trying to defend 'your type' (Muslims), because to my Creator you are all not these (Muslims, Christians) - these are imaginations of the specific people through whom the message was sent at one point in time.

[LearnIslam]

Islam spreaded in my country, Indonesia, through unarmed civilians. First by traders from Gujarat, and later by immigrants from Yemen. There was no bloodshed, there was no destruction. Now you can visit ancient Hindu and Buddhist temples that still maintained well as heritage from period before Islam. Muslims in my place have no problem with it.

Please treat them well. The Hindus have parted with their land for the "Muslims" giving them Pakistan. And see what a Hell on Earth, terror base it has become.

So, it's not true if Islam always spread through sword although indeed, in some other areas Islam spreaded by military expedition.

I know of where and where not.

Anjem is lucky. He lives in country where native Christians are tolerant enough toward Muslims, more than Muslims toward non-Muslims in Muslim countries. I've seen a video that show Anjem gave 'Islamic' speech in front of a Cathedral, and nothing happen. I can't imagine what would happen if a Christian gave Christian speech in front of a mosque.

Indeed, Anjem and some Muslim leader are bad in adab. But it doesn't mean all Muslim leaders are intolerant and provocative. There are many Muslim leader who tolerant. If you don't know, it's because you just focus to the extremist

You're welcome. Those leaders will not listen to me. So I choose to talk to ordinary Muslims people. I hope it can make the people realize that those leaders have taught the wrong things, and later they will leave those leaders alone.

During the Golden Age Muslims were advanced not only in science and technology but also in "thought". There were many books about relationship between human and Allah, about Islamic philosophy, that had written in that time although later many books were destroyed by Mongol invader.

And why do these clerics get so many followers? Don't make the British uncomfortable. They didn't come on this Earth to bear with the perverted ideas of the Truth to listen from people like Anjem. Ask yourself this : what has made leaders like Anjem popular as opposed to what you say happened in the Golden Age?

Nowadays "Islamic thought" is more than about how Muslims can live in the modern world. Sharia banking and finance, rediscovery of prophetic medicine, are the product of this thought.


Extremist might blow my house too. They kill not only non-Muslims, but also Muslims who do not stand with them.

When I was young in late of 80's me and my friends found a bag. We opened the bag to know who was the owner, and then we gave back that bag to the owner. Nowadays, if people found a bag, they would not dare to open it. They would call police, then police call bomb squad, because they worry about bomb.

I always smile and greet my Christian neighbor when we meet. I have good relationship with my non-Muslims friends and relatives (some people in my mother family are Christians). So what you mean with I make those non-Muslim people feel uncomfortable?

It is the leaders and clerics who represent your faith who indoctrinated youths to lay such plots like exploding bags, and thus create this tension on Earth. As regards your non-Muslim neighbors do not badger them to join your faith. For none of you know the glory of the Creator. And if you find anyone else doing this, tell them the truth. But I am here knowing that I don't know.

Okay, okay, I understand what you mean. I know that there are non-Muslim people who feel threatened by Muslims. But actually it's because they too generalize Muslims. They see Muslims only from the worst Muslims, and do not look at the other Muslims who are tolerant.

Its not about seeing the worst, its about not knowing which common person Muslim could be associated with the worst. You take offense at the terrorists who follow the religion of the Devil in your name. I have Muslim friends too, I am not generalizing, I am explaining why there is discomfort and fear amongst others towards Muslims.

..Many Muslim leaders have spoken out against it, and they try to eradicate this problem. But again, you don't know it.

Name them. Why is their popularity or voice dimmed? If they did have voice Muslim nations wouldn't be either puppets of the West or run by evil Imams.

Yes, the bad image of Islam is caused by Muslims themselves. But non-Muslims should be wise too through not generalizing that all Muslims hate non-Muslims, all Muslims want to take over the world, etc.


Regarding to Iraq invasion on Kuwait, Muslim world actually wanted that problem resolved by Muslims themselves. But Saudi Arabia already invited US to lead the war.

Saudi Arabia is inside the Muslim world. Once again what I was saying - irresponsible leadership, lack of equipped trained army because the growth of science and education is not given priority as it is considered contrary to the Creator's will. So the Muslim leadership did invite the wolf children.

Muslims should rightly feel suspicious of the American government, they would be fools if they didn't. They shouldn't allow America to arm them against each other, they are fools for letting this happen. The Arabs are the same as the Jews, know this too. But for years they were oppressed under Muslim rule. Now they are allies of the wolf. If you and your brother fight for many years, and you create bitterness. Certainly he will go to the weapon trader below your house to buy weapons and kill you.

[Abz2000]

You blame the Muslims for this?
They were planning it from before the first world war, destruction of khilafah al uthmaaniyyah and occupying rebranding Al Quds as "mandate palestine" in the process of the creation and placement of a Godless "zionist" state,
The main name to research would be "house of rothschild".

“There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources.
They dominate the intersections of world routes.
Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions.
These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations.
No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another …
if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.
*Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars.
It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.”

From the Campbell-Bannerman Report, 1907——

“Imperialist Britain called for forming a higher committee of seven European countries.
The report submitted in 1907 to British Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman emphasized that the Arab countries and the Muslim-Arab people living in the Ottoman Empire presented a very real threat to European countries, and it recommended the following actions:
1. To promote disintegration, division, and separation in the region.
2. To establish artificial political entities that would be under the authority of the imperialist countries.
3. To fight any kind of unity—whether intellectual, religious or historical —and taking practical measures to divide the region’s inhabitants.
4. To achieve this, it was proposed that a “buffer state” be established in Palestine, populated by a strong, foreign presence that would be hostile to its neighbours and friendly to European countries and their interests.”Dan Bar-On & Sami Adwan, THE PRIME SHARED HISTORY PROJECT, in Educating Toward a Culture of Peace, pages 309–323, Information Age Publishing, 2006


And to learn how the holocaust and U.N were engineered,
Recommended search terms would be

holocaust+nazi+
(The following):
Rothschild
Rockefeller
Bush
Windsor
IG FARBEN
IBM
GENERAL ELECTRIC
Juden Raus.

Then it might shed a light on why India was being partitioned into Pakistan at such a convenient time by the colonialists who were leaving anyway and when enough political capital had been created in the form of sympathy and clout, and who actually donated and built the U.N. Which made the partition in the middle east under the false guise of "ending all wars".

[Futuwwa]

Please treat them well. The Hindus have parted with their land for the "Muslims" giving them Pakistan.

No, they didn't. The Hindus in question became Muslims by choice, and continued to live where they had lived as Hindus. The way you put it implies that Hindus are the rightful owners of the land and for the Muslims to have it is a gift of generosity, not a right.

[Abz2000]

The Muslims (the real ones) saw through the colonial plan to divide and rule and were well established in the khilafat movement which was supported by the majority of indians, the Muslim voice in india was powerful, the partition seems to have been a ruse to create a split and justify what happened in the middle east a few months later.
Islam doesn't recognise racist borders.

Initially, Maududi opposed the creation of a separate Muslim state in the subcontinent. As JI*Ameer*(leader) he opposed the leaders of the*Muslim League*who sought an independent Muslim-majority state—to be named Pakistan—but did not have an Islamic outlook. He believed that

"An Islamic state is a Muslim state, but a Muslim state may not be an Islamic state unless and until the Constitution of the state is based on The Holy Qur'an and Sunnah."

After founding of Pakistan

With the*Partition of India*in 1947, the JI was split to follow the political boundaries of new countries carved out of British India.

The organisation headed by Maududi became known as*Jamaat-i-Islami*Pakistan, and the remnant of JI in India as the*Jamaat-e-Islami Hind.

Later JI parties were the*Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, and autonomous groups in*Indian Kashmir.[31]
With the founding of Pakistan, Maududi's career underwent a "fundamental change", being drawn more and more into politics, and spending less time on ideological and scholarly pursuits.[32]*
Although his Jamaat-i Islami party never developed a mass following, it and Maududi did develop significant political influence. It played a "prominent part" in the agitation which brought down President*Ayub Khan*in 1969 and in the overthrow of Prime Minister*Zulfikar Ali Bhutto*in 1977.[33]*Maududi and the JI were especially influential in the early years of General*Zia ul-Haq's rule.

His political activity, particularly in support of the creation of an Islamic state clashed with the government, (dominated for many years by a secular political class), and resulted in several arrests and periods of incarceration.

The first was in 1948 when he and several other JI leaders were jailed after Maududi objected to the government's clandestine sponsorship of*jihad in Kashmir*while professing to observe a ceasefire with India.[34]

Then "pakistan" was split again into eastern secular pro indian "people's republic and western secular "islamic" republic.

It seems to have been the plan since there was no corridor provided for travelling between east and west pakistan without going through india.
And hostility was high.
Suffice it to be stated that the Muslims got a raw deal, from having a powerful voice in the parliament in hind , they became a split dhimmi nation under british east india company secularists.

Mothilal nehru was a prominent freemason whose family became the oligarchs of "independent" india, and anyone who cares to research will find that fremasonry was brought to india via the colonial occupiers - the "honourable" east india company.

They never left india, just used british public money to occupy it, split it and those who weilded influence in royal circles let their shills run the separate privatised franchises.

The controversial former leader of Bangladesh's largest Islamist party, Ghulam Azam, has died at the age of 91.
The former head of Jamaat-e-Islami died from a heart attack on Thursday, a hospital spokesman in Dhaka said.
Last year Azam was sentenced to 90 years in jail after being found guilty of charges relating to Bangladesh's 1971 war of independence with Pakistan.
There were violent clashes between supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami and police after the verdict in July 2013.

Last year, a court in Dhaka found Azam guilty on five charges including conspiracy, incitement, planning, abetting and failing to prevent murder.
He faced more than 60 counts of crimes against humanity for his role in setting up militia groups that carried out atrocities during the 1971 war.

He had denied the charges, which his supporters argued were politically motivated.

They were always pro-Islam,
But the secularist pakistani franchise accused them of being pro indian, and the secularist bangladeshi franchise accused them of being pro pakustani government, and now the secularist indian franchise accuses them of being pro pakistani government.


The Pharaoh dominated the land and divided its inhabitants into different groups, suppressing one group by killing their sons and keeping their women alive. He was certainly an evil-doer.

[syed_z]

I don't think Charlie Hebdo did those cartoons in order to provoke anyone. There were cartoons about Virgin Mary, and Rabbis. Its understandable that Muslims got offended by it. But nobody protested, no Muslim voice came forward and said they found it offensive for so and so reasons.

Charlie Hebdo Founder Says Slain Editor 'Dragged' Staff To Their Deaths

Henri Roussel, who helped to conceive the inaugural issue of Charlie Hebdo in 1970, penned an editorial for the French magazine L'Obs about slain editor Stephane Charbonnier and his "stubborn" management style. Roussel wonders why Charbonnier, also known as Charb, continued to push his staff despite multiple threats and attacks, suggesting that his "block head" behavior led the rest of the team to their deaths.

“I really hold it against you," he wrote to Charbonnier, under the pen name Delfeil de Ton, the Telegraph reported Wednesday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6480034.html


...see this was a clear provocation on the part of the magazine for such a long time that even their staff admits that the editor kept provoking sentiments of not only the Muslims but Jews and Christians and continued to act in an authoritative manner. How can someone who supports democracy and freedom of speech continue to do something like this when the staff themselves are not united in their decision to continue with such ridiculing of religions.

Christian values were also ridiculed, Pope Francis shared his views which are the same as what a Muslim who does not support the killing would say so:

“One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith,” Francis said, adding that every religion “has its dignity.”
The Pope said that one can react violently when being offended. He offered an example, referring to his trip planner saying that if his “great friend says a swear word against my mother, then he is going to get a punch. But it’s normal, it’s normal.”
However he added that “one cannot offend, make war, kill in the name of one’s own religion, that is, in the name of God.”

http://rt.com/news/222935-pope-relig...edom-insulted/

So, that is exactly why I am asking this question for the third time : In what way does Islam say people should make an objection?

In the Western World where secular law exists then obviously Muslims are supposed to protest by however the Law allows them to and they have done it, in Toronto where I used to live myself I joined the protest in Downtown when the 1st Danish Cartoons were published followed by French publishing of Charlie Hebdo. Likewise Muslims protested and kept protesting peacefully since year 2005.

[Abz2000]

Try to connect the dots:

At the time of partition in 1947,

as many as 10 million Muslim refugees fled their homes in India and sought refuge in Pakistan—about 8 million in West Pakistan.
Virtually an equal number of Hindus and Sikhs were uprooted from their land and familiar surroundings in what became Pakistan, and they fled to India.

Unlike the earlier migrations, which took centuries to unfold, these chaotic population transfers took hardly one year.

The resulting impact on the life of the subcontinent has reverberated ever since in the rivalries between the two countries, and each has continued to seek a lasting modus vivendi with the other. Pakistan and India have fought four wars, three of which (1948–49, 1965, and 1999) were over*Kashmir.*

The*United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine*was a proposal developed by the*United Nations, which recommended a*partition*with Economic Union of*Mandatory Palestineto follow the termination of the*British Mandate.

On 29 November 1947,

the U.N.*General Assembly*adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).[2]
The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.

The United Nations Headquarters complex was constructed in stages with the core complex completed between 1948 and 1952.
The Headquarters occupies a site beside the East River, on 17 acres (69,000*m2) - or 18 acres depending on sources*[6]- of land purchased from the foremost New York real estate developer of the time,*William Zeckendorf, Sr.

*Nelson Rockefeller*arranged this purchase, after an initial offer to locate it on the*Rockefeller family*estate of*Kykuit*was rejected as being too isolated from Manhattan.

The US$8.5 million (adjusted by inflation US$83.4*million) purchase
was then funded by his father,John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who donated it to the city.[7]*

Wallace Harrison, the personal architectural adviser for the Rockefeller family, and a prominent corporate architect, served as the Director of Planning for the United Nations Headquarters.
His firm, Harrison and Abramovitz, oversaw the execution of the design.

The Rockefeller Foundation funded Nazi racial studies even after it was clear that this research was being used to rationalize the demonizing of Jews and other groups.
Up until 1939 the Rockefeller Foundation was funding research used to support Nazi racial science studies at the*Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics*(KWIA.)
Reports submitted to Rockefeller did not hide what these studies were being used to justify, but Rockefeller continued the funding and refrained from criticizing this research so closely derived from Nazi ideology.
The Rockefeller Foundation did not alert "the world to the nature of German science and the racist folly" that German anthropology promulgated and Rockefeller funded for years after the passage of the 1935 Nuremberg racial laws.[40]

Juden Raus!*(1936)

Juden Raus*(“Jews out") is a*Cross and Circle-style game published in*Germanyby Günther & Co. in 1936, just one year after the*Nuremberg Laws*were put into effect.

The game was advertised as "entertaining, instructive and solidly constructed."[2]*

The game's equipment includes a pair of dice, a game board, and several game piece figurines with large*pointed hats*meant to represent*Jews.[3]

Players take turns rolling the dice and moving their "Jews" across the map toward "collection points" outside the city walls for deportation to*Mandate Palestine
.[4]*

Written on the game board, it says “If you manage to see off 6 Jews, you’ve won a clear victory!”

Nazi Germany*used violence and economic pressure to encourage Jews to leave Germany of their own volition;[28]*around 250,000 of the country's 437,000 Jews emigrated between 1933 and 1939.[29][30]

Adolf Eichmann travelled to British*Mandatory Palestine*with his superior*Herbert Hagen*in 1937 to assess the possibility of Germany's Jews voluntarily emigrating to that country, disembarking with forged press credentials at*Haifa, whence they travelled to*Cairo*in Egypt.*

Adolf Eichmann was a crypto-Jewish Zionist Nazi, who, together with other such Jews, attempted to force European Jewry to emigrate to Palestine against their will.

According to Hennecke Kardel in his book*Adolf Hitler: Begruender Israels, Eichmann was a full-blooded Jew.
According to Eichmann himself, he was a radical Zionist.

Adolf Eichmann identified himself as a Zionist in 1939 in a conversation with Anny Stern,"'Are you a Zionist?' Adolph Eichmann, Hitler's specialist on Jewish affairs, asker her. 'Jawohl,' she replied. 'Good,' he said, 'I am a Zionist, too. I want every Jew to leave for Palestine.'"

—L. Dickstein, "Hell's Own Cookbook",*The New York Times, Book Review Section, (17 November 1996), p. 7.

..... Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars.It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.”

British Prime Minister.
From the Campbell-Bannerman Report, 1907——

1950–1951 Baghdad bombings*refers to the bombing of Jewish targets in*Baghdad, Iraq, between April 1950 and June 1951.

Two confirmed activists in the Iraqi Zionist underground were found guilty by an Iraqi court for the bombing, and were sentenced to death. Another was sentenced to life imprisonment and seventeen more were given long prison sentences.[2]*

The allegations against Israeli agents had "wide consensus" amongst Iraqi Jews in*Israel.[3][4][5][6][7]

Many of the Iraqi Jews in*Israel*who lived in poor conditions blamed their ills and misfortunes on the Israeli Zionist emissaries or Iraqi Zionist underground movement.[8]

*The allegations against the Zionist agents were viewed as "more plausible than most" by the British Foreign Office.[9][10][11][7][4][5]
Israeli involvement has been consistently denied by the Israeli government, including by a Mossad-led internal inquiry,[12]*even following the 2005 admission of the*Lavon affair.[13][14][15][16][17]

Historians who assign responsibility for the bombings to an Israeli or Iraqi Zionist underground movement suggest the motive was to encourage*Iraqi Jewsto*immigrate*to*Israel,[18][19][14][20]*as part of the ongoing*Operation Ezra and Nehemiah.*

In 1949, Zionist emissary Yudka Rabinowitz complained that the complacency of the Iraqi Jews was "hampering our existence" and proposed to the*Mossad*"throwing several hand-grenades for intimidation into cafes with a largely Jewish clientele, as well as leaflets threatening the Jews and demanding their expulsion from Berman", using the code name for Iraq.[56]*
The Mossad forbade him to conduct negotiations about or carry out any acts of terror, an order which he reported that he had "confirmed and accepted".

Shimon Mendes wrote in*Ha'aretz*that:
"Someone had to act, and he took the appropriate action at the right time. For only an act like the explosions would have brought them to Israel. Anyone who understood politics and developments in Israel was long aware of that."[64]

[Abz2000]

Here's a little video i put together a few years back to shed some light on the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eF9DCTv3XE

Why are we bickering over the falsely engineered talking points when the facts are obvious?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-tor...vocation/19928

The bottom line is, this reeks of a false flag.
But confusing us with multi-layered deceptions shouldn't make us deny that in the absence of sincere repentance, the punishment for mocking or abusing the Messengers of God is capital punishment.
Both of these men are "suspected attackers" who have been conveniently murdered, and one's wife has disappeared. We shouldn't be slandering them.

It is not you that they hate (O Prophet), it is the signs of Allah which the wicked deny.

They are trying to achieve a much more sinister purpose by character assasinating the Messengers of God, and also with these provocations and false flags.

How does Allah deal with such a situation ?

He (swt) clarifies the punishment of actual punishment according to the Highest Law.

And clarifies that it is an obvious slander in this situation.

The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.....


Indeed, those who came with falsehood are a group among you. Do not think it bad for you; rather it is good for you. For every person among them is what [punishment] he has earned from the sin, and he who took upon himself the greater portion thereof - for him is a great punishment.24:12to topSahih International

Why, when you heard it, did not the believing men and believing women think good of one another and say, "This is an obvious falsehood"?


24:13to topSahih InternationalWhy did they [who slandered] not produce for it four witnesses? And when they do not produce the witnesses, then it is they, in the sight of Allah , who are the liars.24:14to topSahih InternationalAnd if it had not been for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy in this world and the Hereafter, you would have been touched for that [lie] in which you were involved by a great punishment24:15to topSahih InternationalWhen you received it with your tongues and said with your mouths that of which you had no knowledge and thought it was insignificant while it was, in the sight of Allah , tremendous.24:16to topSahih InternationalAnd why, when you heard it, did you not say, "It is not for us to speak of this. Exalted are You, [O Allah ]; this is a great slander"?24:17to topSahih InternationalAllah warns you against returning to the likes of this [conduct], ever, if you should be believers.24:18to topSahih InternationalAnd Allah makes clear to you the verses, and Allah is Knowing and Wise.
Chapter 24

The french government are perjurers, you can't accept their evidence at face value according to their own false law.

And you also know that they are trying to justify their future crimes with this falehood.

O you who have believed, if there comes to you a transgresor with news, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful

Quran 49:7

these are the type of people who would have said it's ok to commit adultery,
yet would have accused Aisha (ra) of it due to their hate of God, His message, and the Messenger.
Just so they can spread corruption and fahishah and continue to be corrupt.

A double crime.

Like posting the cartoons abusing and mocking God's Mesengers and then staging the false flag falsehoods. Just so they can spread fear and hate and kufr, and then bomb innocent people out of injustice.

[LearnIslam]

No, they didn't. The Hindus in question became Muslims by choice, and continued to live where they had lived as Hindus. The way you put it implies that Hindus are the rightful owners of the land and for the Muslims to have it is a gift of generosity, not a right.

Please don't lie in a forum like this. I earnestly request that. No population can dwindle to such small numbers out of choice in a hostile territory.

I neither believe the Zoroastrians of Persia gave up their faith out of choice, nor the Hindus who lived in Pakistan. India doesn't belong to the Hindus, but its their homeland and it was split for the Muslims. This is history, not what I am saying.

[LearnIslam]

Abz2000

I have read all things from objective sources before commenting here. Look at Pakistan today and look at India - there is a huge difference in the way they are progressing. I myself desire a stable Muslim heartland, it is beneficial to all. But where does it exist? In Iraq? In Pakistan? Terrorists attacked India and Pakistan is housing them. Pakistan was housing Osama Bin Laden and he gets the sympathies of many Muslims - I have seen. But I say under no circumstances is it right to kill in the style of 9/11.

These countries have only harbored terrorists and the reason they can do that is because the prominent voices of Islam are clerics who are myopic and militant.

I didn't come here to show the Muslims down. I will leave this internet forum and have you win this debate if that is what you wish. But what is happening in the name of the Creator is undeniable.

What Charlie Hebdo did was in very bad taste, but what terrorist organization have been doing is worse - spreading fear and hate in the name of the Creator. And its not like I am looking at the extremists, the problem is the biggest leaders of Islam are militant which is the issue.

Who would you say is the most responsible leader of the Muslim world, who has qualities of Imaan, or Adab? If you all are serious about representing the faith of my Creator (yours too), you will look at these objectively. This discussion is not for discussion sake.

[Hulk]

problem is the biggest leaders of Islam are militant which is the issue.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

[Abz2000]

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Assalamu'alaikum wr wb,
LearntodissIslam's intentions seem quite transparent, but i would tend to agree with him/her/it???'s statement that the biggest leaders of Islam were militant though it was a virtue, not an "issue".
They upheld faith, truth, and valour with honour and held loyalty to God, sacrifice and bravery as manly virtues.

I can give some examples:
Abu Bakr Al Siddique was involved with his revered and trusted leader who was none other than the Final Messenger of God (pbuh) in several campaigns such as the*Battle of Uhud, the*Battle of the Trench, the*Invasion of Banu Qurayza,*Battle of Khaybar, the*Conquest of Mecca, the*Battle of Hunayn, the*Siege of Ta'if, and the*Battle of Tabuk*where he was reported to have given all of his wealth for the preparation of this expedition.

Abu Bakr's Caliphate lasted for 27 months, during which he crushed the rebellion of the Arab tribes throughout the*Arabian Peninsula*in the successful*Ridda Wars.
In the last months of his rule, he launched campaigns against the*Sassanid Empire*and the*Eastern Roman Empire*(Byzantine Empire) and thus set in motion a historical trajectory[61]*(continued later on by*Umar*and*Uthman ibn Affan) that in just a few short decades would lead to one of the*largest empires in history.

These were real men.
They weren't the limp wristed batty type, or the evil tyrant type.

And they weren't the type to sell out their citizens' futures to international usurers via massive iou's that they had no intention of honouring.

They had short inauguration speeches of substance, not long lists of lies to be read off of teleprompters, which is why they earned respect.

I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you.
If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right.
Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery.
The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God wills;
and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God wills.
Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger.
But if I disobey God and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience.
Arise for your prayer, God have mercy upon you.

Many of the muhajireen ( the Muslims who emigrated from Mecca to Medinah) spoke up, using the most eloquent of words to describe their dedication.
But there was one of the sahabah whom all the others envied for his statement to Rasoolullah (saws).
He, Miqdad ibn al Aswad, rose up in front of the crowd and said, 'O Messenger of God! We will not say to you as Bani Israel said to Musa, 'Go you and your Lord and fight, we are here sitting (waiting).' (surat al maa'idah).
Go by Allah's blessing and we are with you!"
And so the Messenger of God (saws) was very pleased, but in his greeat wisdom, he waited silently, and some among the Muslims knew what he intended.
So far only the muhajiroon had given their consent, but it was the Ansar (the Muslims who lived in Medinah and welcomed the Muslims into their city) who had the most to loose in this stake and it was not a part of the pledge (that Rasoolullah had taken from the Ansar at ‘Aqabah) for the Ansar to fight with the Muslims in foreign territory.
So, the great leader of the Ansar, Sa'd ibn Mu'adh spoke up,
O Messenger of GodMaybe you mean us."
The Messenger of God (saws) responded in the affirmative. Sa'd proceeded to give a beautiful speech in which he said, among many things:
"O Messenger of Allah, we have believed in you and we believe that you are saying the truth.
We give you, based on that, our covenant to listen to and obey you.....By Allah, the One Who sent you with the truth, if you were to enter the sea, we would rush into it with you and not one of us would stay behind...May Allah show you in our actions what will satisfy your eyes. So march with us, putting our trust in Allah's blessings." The Messenger of God (saws) was very pleased by this and said, “Forward and be of cheer, for Allah has promised me one of the two (the caravan or the battle), and by Allah, it is as if I now saw the enemy lying prostrate.”
The Muslims marched forward and encamped at the nearest spring of Badr (closest to Medinah, which is north of Mecca).*

[Hulk]

Wa alaykumsalam wrwb

Sayyidina Abu Bakr r.a is the best after Rasulullah s.a.w, I wouldn't say he was militant. His concern was always for Rasulullah s.a.w, the interest of the Ummah, and inviting people to Islam. The battles were always either in defence, or when Rulers did not give it's people the right to hear the message of Tauhid. That said, I suppose one would first have to define what is meant by militant. Also, I would hope that there is no one today who sees themselves fit to liken themselves to Sayyidina Abu Bakr r.a.

[Abz2000]

A*militant*is someone who is engaged in a war or who acts aggressively for their cause. If you are*militant*in your beliefs, you do not question them anymore than a soldier questions his orders.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/militant

[Futuwwa]

Please don't lie in a forum like this. I earnestly request that. No population can dwindle to such small numbers out of choice in a hostile territory.

I neither believe the Zoroastrians of Persia gave up their faith out of choice, nor the Hindus who lived in Pakistan. India doesn't belong to the Hindus, but its their homeland and it was split for the Muslims. This is history, not what I am saying.

It is what you are saying, and nothing more. You are inferring that they must have been forcibly converted because you can't imagine anyone choosing to be a Muslim. There was very little forced conversion in Persia. The Hindus who lived in the area which today is Pakistan did suffer a significant amount of forced conversion when Timur invaded, but after that, many generations have passed during which they have been Muslims by choice. No authority compelled them to remain Muslims after the downfall of the Mughals.

[Scimitar]

to add to that, Shaikhh ul Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah spoke openly against the Mongol ignorance of Shariah and the spread of Mongol law instead, which saw the non Muslims forcibly converted - Ibn Taymiyyah was jailed for openly speaking against the Mongols and even identified them ad Yajouj wa Majouj - the mongols decided to jail him and he died in Jail.

Even wiki has the scoop:

Taqî ad-Dîn Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah (born in Harran, January 22, 1263 – died in Damascus, September 20, 1328 at the age of 65), full name: Taqī ad-Dīn Abu 'l-`Abbās Aḥmad ibn `Abd al-Ḥalīm ibn `Abd as-Salām Ibn Taymiyyah al-Ḥarrānī (Arabic: تقي الدين أبو العباس أحمد بن عبد الحليم بن عبد السلام بن عبد الله ابن تيمية الحراني‎), was a Sunni Islamic scholar (alim), Sunni Islamic philosopher, Sunni theologianand logician. He lived during the troubled times of the Mongol invasions. He was a member of the school founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and is considered by his followers, along with Ibn Qudamah, as one of the two most significant proponents of Hanbalism; in the modern era, his adherents often refer to the two as "the two sheikhs" and Ibn Taymiyyah in particular as "Sheikh ul-Islam".^[9][10]Ibn Taymiyyah was notable for having sought the return of Sunni Islam to what he viewed as earlier interpretations of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and is considered to have had considerable influence in contemporary Wahhabism, Salafism, and Jihadism.^[11][12] He is renowned for his fatwa (takfir) issued against the Mongol rulers declaring jihad by Muslims against them compulsory, on the grounds that they did not follow Sharia and as such were not Muslim, their claims to have converted to Islam notwithstanding.^[11][13] His teachings had a profound influence on the Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and other later Sunni scholars.^[4]

Scimi

[LearnIslam]

I just want to you all to know my intentions - it is to learn Islam and see if what you understand by Islam is indeed the faith of the Creator.

Regarding 'being militant', what I meant is there is no dialogue or protest, there is a direct attack - by means of arms and terror. And if this was against the American soldiers is can be even considered righteous, but for it to be targeted at populations is wrong.

If someone does wrong (like Americans bomb places that destroys civilians in Iraq), is it right from your side? If someone came and hurt your child, would you get their child? Is it right?

I don't know many Muslim clerics, I am not a Muslim but the message of Jihad and 'Embrace Islam or die' is stronger than the moderate voice in the Muslim world, which is why the world stands to clarify in the face of such attacks.

Learning of science and technology to benefit mankind is a very holy thing, but its other issues that are taken as the main focus. A place of free thinking blossoms great ideas and a flourishing civilization. The West was there at one point even if all the freedoms to exchange ideas are, in great part, used badly. But unless the method of free dialogue and thinking comes into the Islamic world again, its not good for stability in the Muslim world. What I say is not contrary to the will of the Creator.

There is no documentation on the Zoroastrians, but we do know a small group migrated to India when the Muslims invaded - so it was an invasion.

I can't imagine a people giving up their faith as quickly either. Would any of you give up Islam? No. Because you think that is the faith of the Creator. In the same way the Zoroastrians thought theirs was the faith of the Creator.

Now in this regard, ISIS hopes to convert all places to Islam by force, its in their agenda. We either see their supporters, or passive bystanders, but not a Muslim voice that says the contrary and is as strong. So Islam gets a bad name.

Who would say that so and so country (given Muslim country) is fine having all faiths and believers? None.

Would you accept or praise someone who converted to Christianity? With the same conviction that Christians think, so do you about Islam. What does it matter? None of you know the Creator or his actual glory. Does Anjem? This whole thing about converting is like a number game.

Anjem hopes to convert all of UK into Islam, would it be acceptable for him if even any sizable group in Pakistan became non-Muslim? Not so, right?

Because the conviction is that others are false and you are following the faith of the Creator. Arabs have hijacked the faith of the Creator and that is not correct. Because none of us have actually realized Him.

[LearnIslam]

What is taught in Islamic schools is what will become of the Muslims who study Islam by the manner of those who teach it nowadays. Think now : Is this in its entirety what should be inculcated to children in the face of challenges of this era?

Glory be to the Creator.

[Hulk]

Regarding 'being militant', what I meant is there is no dialogue or protest, there is a direct attack - by means of arms and terror. And if this was against the American soldiers is can be even considered righteous, but for it to be targeted at populations is wrong.

If someone does wrong (like Americans bomb places that destroys civilians in Iraq), is it right from your side? If someone came and hurt your child, would you get their child? Is it right?

I don't know many Muslim clerics, I am not a Muslim but the message of Jihad and 'Embrace Islam or die' is stronger than the moderate voice in the Muslim world, which is why the world stands to clarify in the face of such attacks.

Personally, I can tell from how you speak that you're not very familiar with, and probably have not even spent a lot of time with muslims. You make yourself sound ignorant when you speak like that, the forum is made up of muslims from different parts of the world, some "western", some muslim majority countries, some asian, etc. Do you think it is mere "coincidence" that we happen to not condone an "embrace Islam or die" mentality? Do you think that we are the minority?

I recently came across a convert who mentioned that he was tired of having to "condemn" every single bad thing someone who happens to be muslim does, as if he is in any way responsible. It seems that it doesn't matter how many times muslims condemn such atrocities, the moment something bad happens that happen to be done by a muslim the attitude by people is to immediately place the blame on muslims as a whole. As if they suddenly had amnesia.

Believe it or not, most muslims have regular lives, they have their own personal responsibilities to worry about. The problem is not in "muslims must condemn all these bad things", it's that people should stop expecting them to as if they somehow are in support of such tragedies unless they publicly condemn it. Normal people, condemn bad things by default, to ask them specifically if they condemn it is kind of insulting.

[LearnIslam]

Personally, I can tell from how you speak that you're not very familiar with, and probably have not event spent a lot of time with muslims. You make yourself sound ignorant when you speak like that, the forum is made up of muslims from different parts of the world, some "western", some muslim majority countries, some asian, etc. Do you think it is mere "coincidence" that we happen to not condone an "embrace Islam or die" mentality? Do you think that we are the minority?

I know many Muslims, and all are my friends. You are not the minority, but the majority. You are all a passive voice. Please keep in mind I am not blaming ISIS or Al-Qaeda actions squarely on Muslims. I think what the terrorist organizations are doing is Un-islamic, just like many other things that are. While other un-islamic things are quickly condemned, these terrorist organizations are seen sympathatically by Muslims (as was OBL).

But these guys are the ones who actually spoil the name of Islam. Those who have no faith, certainly find it easy to provoke and prove their point. See your enemies are more in number than you thought. If a man impersonated you and entered a city, and did crime, would you stand and watch?

I recently came across a convert who mentioned that he was tired of having to "condemn" every little bad thing someone who happens to be muslim does, as if he is in any way responsible. It seems that it doesn't matter how many times muslims condemn such atrocities, the moment something bad happens that happened to be done by a muslim the attitude by people is to immediately place the blame on muslims as a whole.

France didn't blame it on Muslims, instead they rallied to defend Muslims. The reasons people need this clarification is because in your den, evil seems stronger. And that is affecting the other people.

Believe it or not, most muslims have regular lives, they have their own personal responsibilities to worry about. The problem is not in "muslims must condemn all these bad things", it's that people should stop expecting them to as if they somehow are in support of such tragedies unless they publicly condemn it.

I know the Muslims have normal lives and I have many Muslim friends. It is necessary for Muslim clerics and leaders to condemn terrorist activities like that of ISIS and all the other ones around, not just in word but in action. In order for that force to be mightier, the conviction of the good should be higher than the conviction of evil. But which Muslim cleric has? There has to be a Muslim leader who embodies the highest Islamic ideals and is able to wake the leaders against these.

After these crimes, condemning those ones who people believe represent you becomes mere lip service. Does who let the wolf children in their land are like those who call strangers into the house to kill their brother in a quarrel.

I am sure you believe, all that has been said in the Islamic eschatology is true. And those who speak of the Creator in vain, or use His name to sin will face great suffering. The Creator's faith is not for playing number games as to how many people turned to your understood path in His name, or some other path. It is not to be hijack by a particular people, language or symbolism.

[Abz2000]

^ why are you friends with nurse nayirah and do you disassociate yourself from your former act of perjury in order to get a few million children killed?
Are you gonna repent or wot?

We disseminated information in a void as a basis for Americans to form opinions.— Frank Mankiewicz, Vice Chairman, Hill & Knowlton
(information that was totally baseless and false).


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y

[Scimitar]

these terrorist organizations are seen sympathatically by Muslims

I couldn't stop laughing, especially after reading this:

You are not the minority, but the majority. You are all a passive voice.

Compromised thought processes always give me the giggles :D

So I stopped reading and thought, "let me just point this out first"

and now I'm thinking, "I don't even want to laugh at another humans inability to rationalise properly" so I will just stop here and be done with it.

Scimi

[سيف الله]

Salaam

More analysis. Very detailed.

Charlie Hebdo And The War For Civilisation

In 2003, a top security expert told filmmaker Michael Moore, 'there is no one in America other than President Bush who is in more danger than you'. (Michael Moore, 'Here Comes Trouble – Stories From My Life,' Allen Lane, 2011, p.4)

Moore was attacked with a knife, a blunt object and stalked by a man with a gun. Scalding coffee was thrown at his face, punches were thrown in broad daylight. The verbal abuse was ceaseless, including numerous death threats. In his book, 'Here Comes Trouble', Moore writes:

'I could no longer go out in public without an incident happening.' (p.20)

A security company, which compiled a list of more than 440 credible threats against Moore, told him:

'We need to tell you that the police have in custody a man who was planning to blow up your house. You're in no danger now.' (p.23)

But why was Moore a target? Had he published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad?

The problem had begun in the first week of the 2003 Iraq war when Moore's film 'Bowling For Columbine' won the Oscar for best documentary. At the March 23 Academy Awards ceremony, Moore told a global audience:

'I've invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us. They are here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction, yet we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts: we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you! And anytime you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up! Thank you very much.' (p.5-6)

About halfway through these remarks, Moore reports, 'all hell broke loose'. On arriving home from the ceremony, he found three truckloads of horse manure dumped waist-high in his driveway. That night, Moore witnessed for himself the extent to which US corporate journalism defends the right to offend:

'...as I flipped between the channels, I listened to one pundit after another question my sanity, criticise my speech, and say, over and over, in essence: "I don't know what got into him!" "He sure won't have an easy time in this town after that stunt!" "Who does he think will make another movie with him now?" "Talk about career suicide!" After an hour of this, I turned off the TV and went online – where there was more of the same, only worse – from all over America.' (pp.9-10)

This is the reality of respect for free speech in the United States. If, on Oscar night, he had held up a cartoon depicting President Bush naked on all fours, buttocks raised to a pornographic filmmaker, would Moore still be alive today?

War - Total, Merciless, Civilised

In stark contrast to the campaign of near-fatal media vilification of Moore, journalists have responded to the Charlie Hebdo atrocity in Paris by passionately defending the right to offend. Or so we are to believe. The Daily Telegraph's chief interviewer, Allison Pearson, wrote:

'Those that died yesterday did so on the frontline of a war of civilisations. I salute them, those Martyrs for Freedom of Speech.'

Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy agreed, describing the attacks as 'a war declared on civilisation'. Joan Smith wrote in the Guardian:

'I am feeling sick and shaky. I have been writing all day with tears running down my face. I don't suppose I'm alone in reacting like this to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, which is an assault on journalists and free speech.'

New York Times columnist Roger Cohen tweeted:

'I am shaking with rage at the attack on Charlie Hebdo. It's an attack on the free world. The entire free world should respond, ruthlessly.'

The Western tendency to act with ruthless, overwhelming violence is, of course, a key reason why Islamic terrorists are targeting the West. Glenn Greenwald asked Cohen:

'At whom should this violence be directed beyond the specific perpetrators, and what form should it take?'

Sylvain Attal, editor of new media at TV station France24, replied:

'response must be both merciless and respectful of our legal system. Period'

End of discussion. American journalist and regular Fox News talk show host, Geraldo Rivera, raved:

'The French extremists say they are committed to Jihad and are willing to die for their cause. We should make their wish come true. No mercy'

The 'entire free world', then, should resort to ruthless, merciless violence to defend 'civilisation', a term some naïve souls have associated with compassion, restraint, and even the bizarre exhortation:

'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.'

Cohen retweeted Anand Giridharadas, who writes for the New York Times:

'Not & never a war of civilizations or between them. But a war FOR civilization against groups on the other side of that line. #CharlieHebdo'

Thus, we live in a time when a 'war for civilisation' is seen as something more than a grotesque contradiction in terms.

Much, but thankfully not all, media coverage has been this extreme. To his credit, former Independent editor Simon Kelner managed a rather more nuanced view.

Journalism - Part Of 'The Murder Machine'

In The Times, the perennially apocalyptic David Aaronovitch wrote:

'Yesterday in Paris we in the west crossed a boundary that cannot be recrossed. For the first time since the defeat of fascism a group of citizens were massacred because of what they had drawn, said and published.'

The Guardian took a similar view:

'Wednesday's atrocity was the... bloodiest single assault on western journalism in living memory.'

But, in fact, the bloodiest attack on journalism in living memory, at least in Europe, happened on April 23, 1999 when Nato bombed the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television, killing 16 people. The dead included an editor, a programme director, a cameraman, a make-up artist, three security guards and other media support staff. Additional radio and electrical installations throughout the country were also attacked. The New York Times witnessed the carnage:

'The Spanish-style entrance was ripped away by the blasts, which seemed to hit the roof just under the large girder tower that holds numerous satellite dishes. Although the tower and blackened dishes remained, the control rooms and studios underneath had simply disappeared.' (Steven Erlanger, 'Survivors of NATO Attack On Serb TV Headquarters: Luck, Pluck and Resolve,' The New York Times, April 24, 1999)

Presumably this had been some kind of terrible mistake by the civilised West crossing a boundary that could not be recrossed. No, Nato insisted that the TV station, a 'ministry of lies', was a legitimate target and the bombing 'must be seen as an intensification of our attacks'. A Pentagon spokesman added:

'Serb TV is as much a part of Milosevic's murder machine as his military is. The media is one of the pillars of Milosevic's power machine. It is right up there with security forces and the military.' (Erlanger, op.cit.)

Amnesty International responded:

'The bombing of the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television was a deliberate attack on a civilian object and as such constitutes a war crime.'

In all the corporate press discussion of the Paris killings, we have found no mention of Nato's bombing of Serbian TV and radio.

In August 2011, Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO, condemned Nato's bombing of Libyan state broadcasting facilities on July 30, killing three media workers, with 21 people injured:

'I deplore the NATO strike on Al-Jamahiriya and its installations. Media outlets should not be targeted in military actions. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006) condemns acts of violence against journalists and media personnel in conflict situations.'

Again, Nato confirmed that the bombing had been deliberate:

'Striking specifically these critical satellite dishes will reduce the regime's ability to oppress civilians while [preserving] television broadcast infrastructure that will be needed after the conflict.'

In November 2001, two American air-to-surface missiles hit al-Jazeera's satellite TV station in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing a reporter. Chief editor Ibrahim Hilal said al-Jazeera had communicated the location of its office in Kabul to the American authorities.

In April 2003, an al-Jazeera cameraman was killed when the station's Baghdad office was bombed during a US air raid. In 2005, the Guardian quoted the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ):

'"Reports that George Bush and Tony Blair discussed a plan to bomb al-Jazeera reinforce concerns that the US attack in Baghdad on April 8 [2003] was deliberate targeting of the media" said Aidan White, the general secretary of the IFJ.'

According to the Daily Mirror, Bush had told Blair of his plan:

'He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem. There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do - and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it.'

Similarly, during last summer's blitz of Gaza, Israel killed 17 journalists. An investigation led by Human Rights Watch concluded that Israeli attacks on journalists were one of many 'apparent violations' of international law. In a 2012 letter to The New York Times, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, head spokeswoman to foreign media for the Israel Defense Force, wrote:

'Such terrorists, who hold cameras and notebooks in their hands, are no different from their colleagues who fire rockets aimed at Israeli cities and cannot enjoy the rights and protection afforded to legitimate journalists.'

Sorry For Any Offence'

Aaronovitch warned that 'appalling' as previous attacks on Western free speech had been, 'they were generally the work of disorganised loners', whereas the Paris attacks seemed to have been more organised. What then to say of lethal attacks on journalists conducted, not by a group of religious fanatics, but by democratically elected governments?

Given this context, corporate media commentary on the Charlie Hebdo massacre all but drowns in irony and hypocrisy. The Telegraph commented:

'But the march in Paris reminds us, at the very least, that the men of violence are not just a minority, but a fragment of a fragment. And it may be that it also acts as a turning point. The US is to hold a conference at the White House on countering violent extremism...'

In fact, as LSE student Daniel Wickham clarified, 'men of violence' were among the marchers. Certainly the White House is a good place for people to do some serious thinking about violent extremism and how to stop it.

A Guardian leader observed:

'When men and women have gone to their deaths for nothing more than what they have said, or drawn, there is only one side to be on.'

True, but if it is to be meaningful, support for the right to offend must not defer to a self-serving view of a world divided into 'good guys' and 'bad guys', 'us' and 'them'. Like the rest of the media, the Guardian protests passionately when 'bad guys' commit an atrocity against 'us', but emotive defences of free speech are in short supply when 'good guys' bomb Serb and Libyan TV, or threaten the life of progressive US filmmakers. Far fewer tears are shed for Serb, Libyan or Palestinian journalists in US-UK corporate media offices.

The Guardian added:

'Being shocking is going to involve offending someone. If there is a right to free speech, implicit within it there has to be a right to offend. Any society that's serious about liberty has to defend the free flow of ugly words, even ugly sentiments.'

The sentiment was quickly put to the test when BBC reporter Tim Willcox commented in a live TV interview:

'Many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.'

This mild statement of obvious fact brought a predictable flood of calls for Willcox to resign. The journalist instantly backed down:

'Really sorry for any offence caused by a poorly phrased question in a live interview in Paris yesterday - it was entirely unintentional'

A BBC spokesman completed the humiliation:

'Tim Willcox has apologised for what he accepts was a poorly phrased question... He had no intention of causing offence.'

Glenn Greenwald describes the prevailing rule:

'As always: it's free speech if it involves ideas I like or attacks groups I dislike, but it's something different when I'm the one who is offended.'

Chris Hedges notes:

'In France a Holocaust denier, or someone who denies the Armenian genocide, can be imprisoned for a year and forced to pay a $60,000 fine. It is a criminal act in France to mock the Holocaust the way Charlie Hebdo mocked Islam.'

A point emphasised by the recent arrest of a French comedian on charges of 'defending terrorism'.

The irony of the BBC apology, given recent events, appears to have been invisible to most commentators. Radical comedian Frankie Boyle is a welcome exception, having earlier commented:

'I'm reading a defence of free speech in a paper that tried to have me arrested and charged with obscenity for making a joke about the Queen'

The Guardian leader concluded:

'Poverty and discrimination at home may create fertile conditions for the spread of extremism, and western misadventures abroad can certainly inflame the risks.'

The term 'western misadventures' is a perfect example of how media like the Guardian work so hard to avoid offending elite interests with more accurate descriptions like 'Western atrocities' and 'Western genocidal crimes'.

A leader in The Times observed of the Charlie Hebdo killers:

'Their victims knew the risks they ran by defying the jihadist strategy of censorship through terror. They accepted those risks. They understood that freedom is not free, and so should we all.' (Leader, 'Nous Sommes Tous Charlie,' The Times, January 8, 2015)

Fine words, but in 2013 Times owner Rupert Murdoch apologised for a powerful cartoon by Gerald Scarfe that had appeared in the newspaper. The cartoon depicted the brutal Israeli treatment of Palestinians but was not in any way anti-Semitic. Murdoch, however, tweeted:

'Gerald Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times. Nevertheless, we owe major apology for grotesque, offensive cartoon.'

In its response to the Paris killings, The Times perceived 'a vital duty for Muslim clerics who must embrace a new role actively deradicalising their followers. It also imposes an urgent responsibility on Muslim political leaders'.

Did the paper have any positive role models in mind?

'One controversial figure who appears to have understood this is Egypt's president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. In a remarkable speech to imams last week to mark the birthday of Muhammad, he called for a "religious revolution" to prevent the Islamic world being "lost by our own hands".'

The Times went on:

'Mr al-Sisi is not unique. Najib Razak, Malaysia's prime minister, has championed moderate political Islam at home and abroad.' (Leader, 'Freedom Must Prevail,' Times, January 9, 2015)

Thus, Sisi, leader of a military coup, someone who oversaw the massacre of 1,000 civilian protestors on a single day in August 2013, is hailed as a 'champion' of 'moderate political Islam'.

There is so much more that could be said about just how little passion the corporate media have for defending the right to offend. Anyone in doubt should try, as we have, to discuss their own record of failing to offend the powerful. To criticise 'mainstream' media from this perspective is to render oneself a despised unperson. In response to our polite, decidedly inoffensive challenges on Twitter we have been banned by champions of free speech like Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, Jon Snow of Channel 4 News, Jeremy Bowen of the BBC, Peter Beaumont of the Observer and Guardian, and many others.

Even rare dissident fig leaves on newspapers like the Guardian dismiss as asinine and, yes, offensive, the suggestion that they should risk offending their corporate employers and advertisers. Not only is no attempt made to defend such a right, the very idea is dismissed as nonsense unworthy even of discussion.

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/a...ilisation.html

[سيف الله]

Salaam

The pathetic Blair creature strikes again. Looks like he wants to launch another crusade against the Muslim world.


Tony Blair: force is necessary in struggle against radical Islam

The former UK prime minister speaks at a Republican closed-door strategy session and also stresses importance of ‘global alliance to teach tolerance’

Tony Blair has called for a US-led effort to confront the “substantial minority” of Muslims who support terrorism, during a meeting with top Republicans that reunited the former British prime minister with hawks in the party who believe the White House response to recent attacks has been too limited.

According to a source present at a closed-door strategy session attended by nearly 300 Republican senators and congressmen, the former prime minister argued that force would be needed in what he called a “generational” struggle, but more important would be a “global alliance to teach tolerance” as millions of people in the Muslim world are systematically being taught to be intolerant.

Blair, who was introduced by Senator John McCain, also reportedly argued that radical Islam and the terrorism associated with it had not been contained; that countries in the west “didn’t cause it but were caught up in it”; that it was neither isolated nor insignificant and that while the majority of Muslims opposed it, “a substantial and not a fringe minority” supported it.

A spokeswoman for Blair’s private office confirmed to the Guardian that he spoke about the “Middle East peace process, as well as issues relating to the wider region” in his capacity as representative of the Middle East quartet, which represents the United Nations, US, European Union and Russia. She declined to give any further information on the contents of his speech, which was not open to reporters.

An estimated 300 congressional staff members were also present at the meeting, which greeted Blair with standing ovations after he was introduced, at the conclusion of his remarks and after a brief question-and-answer session. There was also frequent applause as he spoke, according to those present.

The meeting came hours before the current UK prime minister, David Cameron, was due to hold talks with Barack Obama over dinner at the White House. The two leaders were expected to discuss the west’s response to recent attacks such as the shooting of journalists and hostages in Paris last week.

Blair appeared to have struck a more confrontational tone, arguing that a variety of factors contributed to radical Islam, but at root it was a struggle within Islam about the nature of the faith and its relationship with other religious communities.

According to the witness, Blair said radical Islam was a perverted ideology that justified the use of force against those of other religions or Muslims who interpreted their faith differently. It was hostile to “us and our values”, he claimed, and though some want to negotiate with it or ignore it, neither of those approaches would work and it had to be confronted.

The former prime minister also talked about the lessons of the post-9/11 era. He reportedly argued that the US and UK had learned that if you topple dictators, you release other forces that have to be dealt with. However, the Arab Spring demonstrated that many of those dictatorships would be swept away in any event.

It was hard to be successful “unless you had allies within Islam itself”, he reportedly said, adding that the Middle East would continue to evolve away from what it is and that unless extremism was fought it would continue to grow. He was said to be “extremely concerned” about the emergence of the Islamic State (Isis) in Syria and Iraq.

Nonetheless, the former prime minister was said be hopeful about the prospect of building further alliances in the Middle East, arguing that many Islamic leaders in recent years had come to understand that they too were the targets of radical Islam. He even thought that over time there could be an alliance of sorts between Israel and the Arab states against radical Islam.

But he concluded that America would have to play a leading role in what he thought would be a “generational” struggle and urged the Republicans present not to disengage and to rise to the task and recognise it was “our problem as well as theirs”.

Blair’s office said he was not paid to speak at the Republican lunch, which was held in Hershey, Pennsylvania, but received travel expenses.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/15/tony-blair-speaks-republican-strategy-session-pennsylvania-radical-islam

[Abz2000]

Thanks for the timely reminder, i recall the media that is now trying to illegaly justify blind and irrational mockery on the Messengers of God in order to cause more confusion and chaos as the same media who remained silent on the illegal infidel attacks on media trying to report the truth as it was:

*US Colonel Advocates US 'Military Attacks' on 'Partisan Media'*in Essay for Neocon, Pro-Israel Group JINSA

By Jeremy Scahill

May 21, 2009 "RebelReports" --

In the era of embedded media, independent journalists have become the eyes and ears of the world. Without those un-embedded journalists willing to risk their lives to place themselves on the other side of the barrel of the tank or the gun or under the airstrikes, history would be written almost entirely from the vantage point of powerful militaries, or—at the very least—it would be told from the perspective of the troops doing the shooting, rather than the civilians who always pay the highest price.
In the case of the Iraq invasion and occupation, the journalists who have placed themselves in danger most often are local Iraqi journalists.
Some 116 Iraqi journalists and media workers have been*killed*in the line of duty since March 2003.
In all, 189 journalists have been killed in Iraq.
At least 16 of these journalists were killed by the US military, according to the*Committee to Protect Journalists.
The network that has most often found itself under US attack is Al Jazeera.
As I wrote a few years ago in*The Nation:
The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001, shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests in April 2003, killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad and imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantánamo), some of whom say they were tortured.
In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government banned the network from reporting in Iraq.

Just a few days before Bush allegedly proposed bombing the network, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Falluja, Ahmed Mansour, reported live on the air,
[b] “Last night we were targeted by some tanks, twice…but we escaped. The US wants us out of Falluja, but we will stay.”
On April 9 Washington demanded that Al Jazeera leave the city as a condition for a cease-fire. The network refused.
Mansour wrote that the next day “American fighter jets fired around our new location, and they bombed the house where we had spent the night before, causing the death of the house owner Mr. Hussein Samir.
Due to the serious threats we had to stop broadcasting for few days because every time we tried to broadcast the fighter jets spotted us we became under their fire.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle22678.htm

[Futuwwa]

Now in this regard, ISIS hopes to convert all places to Islam by force, its in their agenda. We either see their supporters, or passive bystanders, but not a Muslim voice that says the contrary and is as strong. So Islam gets a bad name.

If you think so, you are guilty of not paying attention, and of assuming things about things you have no information of. That's the definition of prejudice.

ISIS has been condemned by pretty much every other Islamic entity that matters in the region.

[LearnIslam]

If you think so, you are guilty of not paying attention, and of assuming things about things you have no information of. That's the definition of prejudice.

ISIS has been condemned by pretty much every other Islamic entity that matters in the region.

It is not just ISIS. Do you agree with other terrorist organizations? Charlie Hebdo's cartoons became so offensive for Muslims, but not the state of Pakistan keeping its terror camps and calling itself Islamic, not with all the other organizations like Boko Haram killing children.

The world is wrong in being prejudiced, but prejudice doesn't appear from nowhere. Many of the Islamic laws aren't even mentioned in Quran - women shouldn't drive etc. Certainly, every Muslim country is different. But that is why I asked which leader would you say teaches the Islamic values as they are correct.

Why do murderous leaders have a louder voice in places of the Muslim heartland - they are motivating youth in these wars, but is there anyone speaking against them?

Why does the Muslim world today find itself in a position to invite Americans and those who don't value your religion or culture to save them from their own brothers?

[M.I.A.]

Because nobody wants to move.

Everybody has too much to lose and the public is fickle.

...you look at the west and Iraq. They removed Saddam under false pretences.

...we can all agree that his people were under duress but what has since became of Iraq?

Its not as easy as just winning a war.

If it was then poverty in Africa would have been a thing of the past a long time ago.

I guess you are correct though, saving people from themselves is a lot harder than one would imagine.

The west was not invited in the way most people are invited..

Maybe its an invite of desperation.


Not sure about the women driving thing, in an ideal world
Women would be chauffeured around wouldn't they? Almost I guess.. Enforced respect is OK for a while.

[LearnIslam]

Because nobody wants to move.

Everybody has too much to lose and the public is fickle.

...you look at the west and Iraq. Thed Saddam under false pretences.

...we can all agree that his people were under duress but what has since became of Iraq?

Its not as easy as just winning a war.

If it was then poverty in Africa would have been a thing of the past a long time ago.

I guess you are correct though, saving people from themselves is a lot harder than one would imagine.

The west was not invited in the way most people are invited..

Maybe its an invite of desperation.


Not sure about the women driving thing, in an ideal world
Women would be chauffeured around wouldn't they? Almost I guess.. Enforced respect is OK for a while.

In every era some things have to be enforced. There more things that have to be enforced, the more uncivilized man is in that era. If there is a good man, will he violate a woman even if there is no state law? All these rules were made so that you all live in order. But those who took the word of God, used their knowledge and charisma for evil and built their own world.

Imagine now if you and your father had a quarrel. You are in great rage against your father. A stranger sees this and offers you a fine sword to slay your brother. Will you take it?

[LearnIslam]

*your father (mistyped as brother). The easy solutions are not beneficial. But this leadership must come from the Muslim heartland, as it will, eventually.

[InToTheRain]

Paris attacks: Jean-Marie Le Pen says French terror attacks were work of Western intelligence:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-9985047.html

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another comment piece.

The sinister, screeching mob who want to kill free speech (And no, I DON'T mean the Islamist terrorists in our midst)

Once again we are ruled by a Dictatorship of Grief. Ever since the death of Princess Diana, we have been subject to these periodic spasms when everyone is supposed to think and say the same thing, or else.

We were told on Friday that ‘politicians from all sides’ had lined up to attack Ukip’s Nigel Farage for supposedly ‘exploiting’ the Paris massacre.

Mr Farage had (quite reasonably) pointed out that the presence of Islamist fanatics in our midst might have something to do with, a) uncontrolled mass migration from the Muslim world, and b) decades of multicultural refusal to integrate them into our laws and customs.

Rather than disputing this with facts and logic (admittedly this would be hard), the three ‘mainstream’ parties joined in screeching condemnation.

The Prime Minister, whose government was busy exploiting the tragedy to shore up the (already vast) snooping powers of the State, said it was not the day to make political arguments.

Why ever not? What could be more political than discussing how to defend ourselves against this sort of crime? If it is not political, then why is he talking about it at all, instead of leaving the matter to the Archbishop of Canterbury?

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, a hungry headline-seeker and reliable sucker for any scheme to diminish freedom that her civil servants drop on her desk, said Mr Farage was ‘irresponsible’.

Why? Was he any less irresponsible than the chief of that sinister organisation MI5, who seized his chance to make our flesh creep with scare stories, and simultaneously apologise in advance for not actually being able to protect us?

Dame Tessa Jowell squeaked that the Ukip leader’s remarks were ‘sickening’. Why? Ed Miliband, whose very job as Leader of the Opposition depends on the belief that disagreement is a good thing in a free country, moaned that Mr Farage was ‘seeking to divide us’.

The Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg said Mr Farage was ‘making political points’ on the ‘back of bloody murders’.

Well, who wasn’t? A sanctimonious unanimity descended on politics and the media. ‘Je suis Charlie,’ everyone said. It was an issue of liberty, we all said. They can’t silence us, stop us drawing cartoons, etc etc etc.

Great mountains of adjectives piled up on every corner, much like those hills of flowers and teddy bears we like to place at the scenes of tragedies.

You can feel the presence of the snarling conformist mob, waiting for some dissenter on whom they can fall, kicking and biting. So-called social media, in fact an intolerant and largely brainless electronic mob, has made this much worse since the sad death of the Princess.

We should stand up to them. It is especially strange that this conformism claims to speak in the name of freedom, when in fact it doesn’t much like freedom at all.

I suggest that we actually think about this. Of course, we all deplore the murder and grieve for the dead and the bereaved. I don’t need David Cameron or Tessa Jowell to tell me that, thanks.

But for the rest, there’s quite a lot of posing going on. Very few newspapers, magazines or TV stations have published or ever will publish the cartoons of Mohammed that Charlie Hebdo printed.

Let us be frank. One major reason for this is fear. We know that Muslims take this very seriously, and that some of them take it very seriously indeed.

Let us agree it was brave to publish these images. That’s easy for me. I know I wouldn’t do it, and I readily acknowledge that I am a coward.

But it also required compulsory bravery on the part of others, especially the police officers, some of them Muslim, laudably and selflessly guarding people they may not have liked or approved of. Not to mention all the others caught in the crossfire.
And what was the purpose of this bravery? What cause, anywhere in the world, was advanced by it? Surely the point of bravery is that it is self-sacrificial for a purpose, to save others? Who was saved by this?

As for freedom, here’s an interesting thing. The French Leftist newspaper Liberation reported on September 12, 1996, that three stalwarts of Charlie Hebdo (including Stephane ‘Charb’ Charbonnier) had campaigned in their magazine to collect more than 170,000 signatures for a petition calling for a ban on the French National Front party. They did this in the name of the ‘Rights of Man’.

You, like me, may dislike the National Front greatly. But lovers of liberty simply do not seek to ban parties they do not like.

This is a double paradox. The French National Front exists mainly because a perfectly reasonable concern about mass immigration was sneeringly dismissed by the mainstream French parties. Something similar is happening in Germany, where large demonstrations against ‘the Islamisation of the West’ in many cities have been scornfully attacked by that country’s elite.

If reasonable calls for restrictions on immigration had been heeded when they were first made, right across Europe, would we now be in the mess we are in? If it is officially regarded as irresponsible, or ‘exploitation’, or ‘sickening’, or ‘divisive’ to say this, then we do not live in freedom, and those who claim to speak in its name are not telling the truth.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/page/2/

[سيف الله]

Salaam

And another

Don't like the PC mob? Well now that makes you a terror threat

We are on the verge of founding Britain’s first Thought Police. Using the excuse of terrorism – whose main victim is considered thought – Theresa May’s Home Office is making a law which attacks free expression in this country as it has never been attacked before.

We already have some dangerous laws on the books. The Civil Contingencies Act can be used to turn Britain into a dictatorship overnight, if politicians can find an excuse to activate it.

But the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, now slipping quietly and quickly through Parliament, is in a way even worse. It tells us what opinions we should have, or should not have.

As ever, terrorism is the pretext. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that the criminal drifters, school drop-outs and drug-addled losers who do much terrorist dirty work (and whose connections with vast worldwide conspiracies are sketchy to say the least) will be even slightly affected by it.

In a consultation paper attached to the Bill, all kinds of institutions, from nursery schools (yes really, see paragraph 107) to universities, are warned that they must be on the lookout for ‘extremists’.

But universities are told they have a ‘responsibility to exclude those promoting extremist views that support or are conducive to terrorism’.

Those words ‘conducive to’ are so vague that they could include almost anybody with views outside the mainstream.

What follows might have come from the laws of the Chinese People’s Republic or Mr Putin’s Russia. Two weeks’ advance notice of meetings must be given so that speakers can be checked up on, and the meeting cancelled if necessary.

Warning must also be given of the topic, ‘sight of any presentations, footage to be broadcast, etc’. A ‘risk assessment’ must be made on whether the meeting should be cancelled altogether, compelled to include an opposing speaker or (even more creepy) ‘someone in the audience to monitor the event’.

Institutions will be obliged to promote ‘British values’. These are defined as ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs’. ‘Vocal and active opposition’ to any of these is now officially described as ‘extremism’.

Given authority’s general scorn for conservative Christianity, and its quivering, obsequious fear of Islam, it is easy to see how the second half will be applied in practice. As for ‘democracy’, plenty of people (me included) are not at all sure we have it, and wouldn’t be that keen on it if we did.

Am I then an ‘extremist’ who should be kept from speaking at colleges? Quite possibly. But the same paragraph (89, as it happens) goes further. ‘We expect institutions to encourage students to respect other people with particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010’.

These ‘protected characteristics’, about which we must be careful not to be ‘extremist’, are in fact the pillars of political correctness – including disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, sex and sexual orientation.

The Bill is terrible in many other ways. And there is no reason to believe that any of these measures would have prevented any of the terrorist murders here or abroad, or will do so in future.

They have been lifted out of the box marked ‘try this on the Home Secretary during a national panic’, by officials who long to turn our free society into a despotism.

Once, there would have been enough wise, educated, grown-up people in both Houses of Parliament to stand up against this sort of spasm. Now most legislators go weak at the knees like simpering teenage groupies whenever anyone from the ‘Security’ or ‘Intelligence’ services demands more power and more money.

So far there has been nothing but a tiny mouse-squeak of protest against this dangerous, anti-British, concrete-headed twaddle. It will go through. And in ten years’ time we’ll wonder why we’re locking people up for thinking. We’ll ask: ‘How did that happen?’ This is how it happens.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

[Zaynab Academy]

A Proposed way to respond by Shaykh Mufti Kamaluddin Ahmed (db) over the cartoon controversies that have happened and have been happening all over the world all this time! Just another perspective to look at things.

Countering Blasphemy: Being an Ummati

[Abz2000]

Here's an interesting perspective on how things are being steered and manipulated.
Although i do not necessarily agree with all points mentioned in the article, i am posting it for the sake of understanding what i believe to be a sincere perspective of another non-dumbass human being.

Monday’s episode of Panorama on “British Islam” was calculated propaganda in support of the UK government’s proposed Counter-Terrorism and Security (CTS) bill, writes*Dilly Hussain......

.....In comparison, Ware’s programme lacked any academic basis to substantiate his narrative.*What should have been renamed as ‘Paranoia..........

http://5pillarsuk.com/2015/01/14/pan...hem-narrative/

'A*society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts,*
who refuse to believe that their*government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts,
is a*society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it's going to*get.'

Ian Williams Goddard

[greenhill]

What to say, Abz2000? Thought provoking quote from Ian Williams Goddard.

:peace:

[Abz2000]

Things won't remain as they are for very long.
Mankind will either submit to God (who is the Creator of the heavens and the earth who will judge us ultimately) - or we're going to see something bigger than 9/11 and a clash of faith and infidelity, the current financial system is about to crash hard and the usurers are poised to introduce electronic currency with harsh draconian laws with the protection of dajjal subdued governments under the guise of protection and order, with the attempted introduction of kufr world government.

They want all possibility of mass control of resources out of the people's control and all transactions traced.

Time to stock up on storable food in anticipation for price surges and gandhi style home sit-ins.

Looks like lots of fasting and prayers ahead.

Then victory of faith on Earth or day of judgement.

I just hope we collectively take the option of submission to God.

And Allah knows best.

I know it sounds crazy to some but you're about to see a huge change.

"The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all*diverting.
It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway.
I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had.
There was no need to.
Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ [b]and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within,

that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.
UNconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?"

To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop.

Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to......one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing......One day it is over his head.


An excerpt from:

They Thought They Were Free

The Germans, 1933-45

Milton Mayer


[/quote]

That was in the days of nation states.

"We are on the verge of global transformation. *All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order"*

"Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States,**characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global**political*and economic structure--one world, if you will.
*If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it"

Memoirs, p.405*

*"We are grateful to*The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine*and other great publications whose directors have attended**our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years. *It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the**world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years.
*But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to**march towards a world government. *
The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the**national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

1991

If they take the kufr route, they'll ultimately be helping to wake mankind up and understanding that God cares/cared about us.
And setting the stage for the flobal Khilafah.
We won't need to break up the nation states and do all that difficult expensive work in setting up a global government.
But we gonna go through difficulty - so fasten ur seatbelts.

1.*When comes the Help of Allah, and Victory,
2.*And thou dost see the people enter Allah's Way of Life in crowds,
3.*Celebrate the praises of thy Lord, and pray for His Forgiveness: For He is Oft-Returning (in Grace and Mercy).

Heads or Tails Rothschild?
God says Checkmate anyways.
Repent, and Submit, makes things easier for us all.

[Scimitar]

French Director Finds Islam After Charlie Attacks

CAIRO – French director Isabelle Matic has announced her decision to revert to Islam on her FaceBook account, making the unexpected announcement only a few days after Charlie Hebdo Paris attacks.


“Today, I passed through the first pillar of Islam. There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet,” Matic said in a message posted on her Facebook page on January 11.


She followed her announcement with a series of posts in which she thanked Moroccan actor Hicham Bahloul for announcing her decision on Moroccan papers.


In another message, she described how she took the decision and its effect on her beliefs in freedom of expression.


“Between the massacre at the premises of Charlie Hebdo and other event that have followed: I became a Muslim,” Matic wrote.


“Am I still for freedom of expression for all and Charlie Hebdo in particular?! Yes,” Matic wrote yesterday.


“With regard to my position towards the caricatures of the Prophet, I will write you the text of the SMS that I received this morning from a mosque which agreed quite well with my thoughts since the beginning of the cartoons, well before I became a Muslim,” she added


“They are making fun of Muhammad and do not harm Muhammad. They are making fun of a character that they have imagined and to whom they have given a name. This man is not our Prophet,” she wrote.


The new Muslim referred to the early life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) when non-believers rejected his calls to Islam.


“The Makkans laughed at Muhammad (worthy of praise) in the appellant Modamam (worthy of name calling). The prophet peace be upon him was smiling. Yes, he was smiling! And he said: They are making fun of Modamam and not me,” Matic wrote.


“The wisdom is the answer to provocations. And this is what our beloved Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be with him) has taught us.


“So when Charlie Hebdo will be published insha ' Allah (God willing), do not pay attention. Do not respond to the provocation. And do not give them of importance,” she added.


In its Wednesday’s edition, Charlie Hebdo magazine features a cartoon of a man they claim to be the prophet of Islam on the cover.


The cover depicts Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) with a tear falling from his cheek, holding a sign that says, "Je suis Charlie” under the headline "All Is Forgiven."


The edition is the first after two gunmen attacked the magazine’s headquarters in Paris, killing 10 journalists and two policemen. Two of the dead were Muslims, an editor and a police cop.


It culminates the magazine’s long history of offending millions of Muslims worldwide.


http://www.onislam.net/english/news/...-attacks.html#


Merci beaucoup, Charlie :D


Scimi

[Pygoscelis]

“They are making fun of Muhammad and do not harm Muhammad. They are making fun of a character that they have imagined and to whom they have given a name. This man is not our Prophet,” she wrote.

That is the healthiest response that I have read so far.

[Scimitar]

indeed, I agree, i also feel the same.

these cartoons don't make me sad or angry, they make me pity the ignorance of the cartoonists themselves. That's all.

Scimi

[LearnIslam]

Paris attacks: Jean-Marie Le Pen says French terror attacks were work of Western intelligence:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-9985047.html

What is happening in the Middle East is not the world of Western intelligence, or some conspiracy theory. Even regarding this link, is there any proof? Think critcally.

When Muslims follow Islam in their personal lives it is good. When it is made into a political ideology meant to override the country they are in, it is wrong. Most of the people in the West have no religious understanding, if it is in the case of the French director, you all are happy. But which one of you actually know the Creator or his will? It's back to that point I said - this is all just number games for you all, not the actual search of the truth.

If people converted to Christianity, would you all post it here as a good thing? What matters is how you treat people. Is anyone paying attention to 'no go zones' or things like that?

It's nice for each of you to see a French director convert to Islam because you identify only Muslims as yours. It's convenient to believe the attack was a conspiracy theory because it strengthens your conviction. The real question is to what level do you, if you are staying in UK, respect the UK culture? Or if you are in another European country, respect that culture? Is it important?

If suppose your neighbor's son lost his head and said wrong things about his culture, parents and upbringing, would you lead him down that path and strengthen it or would you prefer he grow in his own culture and come to enrich his culture? The West is going through a decadency - but this has nothing to do with their culture per se, just its corruption.

In the same way, it would be wrong for me to want to ask all the warring zones in Middle East to embrace another faith, telling them that it would save them.

[LearnIslam]

Things won't remain as they are for very long.
Mankind will either submit to God (who is the Creator of the heavens and the earth who will judge us ultimately) - or we're going to see something bigger than 9/11 and a clash of faith and infidelity, the current financial system is about to crash hard and the usurers are poised to introduce electronic currency with harsh draconian laws with the protection of dajjal subdued governments under the guise of protection and order, with the attempted introduction of kufr world government.

Who are kufr? Who is the Dajjal? Which law is actually draconian? Think for yourself objectively and realize.

I just hope we collectively take the option of submission to God.

And Allah knows best.

The Creator certainly knows best :statisfie. And He knows who have hijacked his faith and used his words to plunder, and his knows who are good and who speak in vain. He knows who bothers and patronizes others in their own homes, and who spreads fear to innocent people. He knows who has faith in Him, and who is a politician (from heart) using His word to hijack it into their culture or specifics.

Heads or Tails Rothschild?
God says Checkmate anyways.
Repent, and Submit, makes things easier for us all.

Rothschild certainly maybe? Many others too. Repent is not only them, Muslim leaders too. Don't imagine that when the Mahdi reveals himself with Jesus, you will see Muslims around the world.

[Pygoscelis]

The Muslims stance against usury is actually a pretty good idea, not original to Islam, and not inseparable from it. I would also push for universal health care and universal basic income (implemented as a tax refund).

But no, we won't all "submit to God"... so you can forget about that part. Instead of bashing heads against each other, why don't we try to find a way to co-exist, and join side by side with the muslims and secular and other religions to topple wealth disparity and even things out.

[Abz2000]

Anyone who deeply reflects on communication comes to realize that it is a projection with an intended idea of consumer reception.
Whether it is cave illustrations, speech (verbal sounds), text, heiroglyphics, or fictional motion image.

The writer is expecting the consumer to construct a certain understanding or image in the mind.

19.*Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza,20.*And another, the third (goddess), Manat?
21.*What! for you the male, and for Him, the female?
22.*Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!
23.*These are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,
- for which Allah has sent down no authority (whatever).
They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!
- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord!


The term dajjal comes from deception, false illusion.

Then there is also the educational/instructional swarm method where a genuinely ambiguous projection is broadcast and the reception is sifted to understand the mind.

Know that Allah judges the hearts and inner thoughts and will sift the broadcaster and the receiver.
And that Allah cannot be questioned for His acts while we will be questioned for ours.

Salman Rushdie used the method of illusory image projection when blaspheming The Messengers of God and the mothers of the believers in his book "the satanic verses".


What would you say if i said:
Hey, dude with the pointed chin from leytonstone, do you still use the username "limitar productions"?
And why don't you love the hypocrite Al-Salul kingdom?

Who was i referring to and did i say anything bad?

Or this:

Hey learntodissislam, are you gonna stop being a shill or what?
Have you never read the Quran or biography of the prophet Muhammad pbuh?
Do you not know that his job was to establish the Rule of Allah (who is the Creator of the heavens and earth) and was harrassed by people like you in Makkah?
The law of the land is legislated by the King of the land, and the True King is Allah (Lord of the two easts and Lord of the two wests), we as creation are not meant to be mafia bosses carving out illegal and corrupt domains.

O ye who believe!
Let not some men among you laugh at others: It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): Nor let some women laugh at others: It may be that the (latter are better than the (former):

Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames
: Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, (to be used of one) after he has believed: And those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong.

Quran The Private Apartments, Chapter 49, Verse 11

Here is a small article i compiled on the topic a while back:

Allah explains to us that deceiving people to cause harm by using ambiguous words is a form of casting an evil spell on the mind. Reading the context of these verses and their reason for revelation will - Allah willing - heal our hearts of this satanic ploy and ensure that we are able to speak a word that is straight and to the point - and not use parables to lead astray via deception, but guide to the way of our Creator via sincere reflection and understanding

And when there came to them a messenger from Allah confirming that which was with them, a party of those who had been given the Scripture threw the Scripture of Allah behind their backs as if they did not know [what it contained].

] ﻢِﻫِرﻮُﻬُﻇ ْ ﻢُﻬﱠﻧَﺄَﻛ ْ ﻻَ َنﻮُﻤَﻠْﻌَﻳ ﺬَﺒَﻧ َ

ﻖﻳِﺮَﻓ ٌ ﻦﱢﻣ َ ﻦﻳِﺬﱠﻟا َ اﻮُﺗوُأ ْ بﺎَﺘِﻜْﻟا َ بﺎَﺘِﻛ َ ﻪّﻠﻟا ِ ءاَرَو ﺎﱠﻤَﻟَو ﻢُﻫءﺎَﺟ ْ لﻮُﺳَر ٌ ﻦﱢﻣ ْ ﺪﻨِﻋ ِ ﻪّﻠﻟا ِ قﱢﺪَﺼُﻣ ٌ ﺎَﻤﱢﻟ ْﻢُﻬَﻌَﻣ

And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited against the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic and that which was revealed to the two angels at Babylon, Harut and Marut. But the two angels do not teach anyone unless they say, "We are a trial, so do not disbelieve [by practicing magic]." And [yet] they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone through it except by permission of Allah . And the people learn that which harms them and does not benefit them. But they certainly knew that whoever purchased the magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves, if they only knew.

اْوَر ْ ﻪِﺑ ِ ﻢُﻬَﺴُﻔﻧَأ ْ ﻮَﻟ ْ اﻮُﻧﺎَﻛ ْ َنﻮُﻤَﻠْﻌَﻳ

ْ ِﻦَﻤَﻟ

ْ اﻮُﻤِﻠَﻋ

ْ ﺪَﻘَﻟَو

ْ ﻻَو َ ﻢُﻬُﻌَﻔﻨَﻳ

َ ﺎَﻣ ﻢُﻫﱡﺮُﻀَﻳ

هاَﺮَﺘْﺷا ُ ﺎَﻣ ﻪَﻟ ُ ﻲِﻓ ةَﺮِﺧﻵا ِ ﻦِﻣ ْ قَﻼَﺧ ٍ ﺲْﺌِﺒَﻟَو َ ﺎَﻣ نﻮُﻤﱠﻠَﻌَﺘَﻳَو

ﻪِﺟْوَزَو ِ ﺎَﻣَو ﻢُﻫ ﻦﻳﱢرﺂَﻀِﺑ َ ﻪِﺑ ِ ﻦِﻣ ْ ﺪَﺣَأ ٍ ﻻِإ َّ نْذِﺈِﺑ ِ ِﻪّﻠﻟا ﺮُﻔْﻜَﺗ ْ نﻮُﻤﱠﻠَﻌَﺘَﻴَﻓ َ ﺎَﻤُﻬْﻨِﻣ ﺎَﻣ نﻮُﻗﱢﺮَﻔُﻳ َ ﻪِﺑ ِ ﻦْﻴَﺑ َ ِءْﺮَﻤْﻟا

َ َتوُرﺎَﻣَو

َ توُرﺎَﻫ

ِ ﻞِﺑﺎَﺒِﺑ

ﻦْﻴَﻜَﻠَﻤْﻟا

َ ﻰَﻠَﻋ

لِﺰﻧُأ

َ ﺎَﻣَو

ﺎَﻣَو نﺎَﻤﱢﻠَﻌُﻳ ِ ﻦِﻣ ْ ﺪَﺣَأ ٍ ﻰﱠﺘَﺣ ﻻﻮُﻘَﻳ َ ﺎَﻤﱠﻧِإ ﻦْﺤَﻧ ُ ﺔَﻨْﺘِﻓ ٌ َﻼَﻓ ﺮْﺤﱢﺴﻟا

ﺮَﻔَﻛ َ نﺎَﻤْﻴَﻠُﺳ ُ لَو ـَ ﻦِﻜ َّ ﻦﻴِﻃﺎْﻴﱠﺸﻟا َ اوُﺮَﻔَﻛ ْ نﻮُﻤﱢﻠَﻌُﻳ َ َسﺎﱠﻨﻟا اﻮُﻌَﺒﱠﺗاَو ْ ﺎَﻣ اﻮُﻠْﺘَﺗ ْ ﻦﻴِﻃﺎَﻴﱠﺸﻟا ُ ﻰَﻠَﻋ ﻚْﻠُﻣ ِ نﺎَﻤْﻴَﻠُﺳ َ ﺎَﻣَو [I

And if they had
believed and feared Allah, then the reward from Allah would have .been [far] better, if they only knew

اﻮُﻧﺎَﻛ ْ َنﻮُﻤَﻠْﻌَﻳ ﻮَﻟَو ْ ﻢُﻬﱠﻧَأ ْ اﻮُﻨَﻣآ ْ اْﻮَﻘﱠﺗاو ﺔَﺑﻮُﺜَﻤَﻟ ٌ ﻦﱢﻣ ْ ﺪﻨِﻋ ِ ﻪﱠﻠﻟا ﺮْﻴَﺧ ٌ ْﻮﱠﻟ

O you who have]] believed, say not [to Allah 's Messenger], "Ra'ina" but say, "Unthurna" and listen. And for the disbelievers is a painful [punishment.

اﻮُﻌَﻤْﺳاَو ﻦﻳِﺮِﻓﺎَﻜﻠِﻟَوْ َ باَﺬَﻋ ٌ ٌﻢﻴِﻟَأ ﺎَﻳ ﺎَﻬﱡﻳَأ ﻦﻳِﺬﱠﻟا َ اﻮُﻨَﻣآ ْ ﻻَ اﻮُﻟﻮُﻘَﺗ ْ ﺎَﻨِﻋاَر اﻮُﻟﻮُﻗَو ْ ﺎَﻧْﺮُﻈﻧا

Believers, do not address the Prophet as ra'ina
(whereby the Jews, in their own accent, meant: Would that you would never hear),
but say unzurna
(meaning: Please speak to us slowly so that we understand),
and then listen. The unbelievers will face a painful torment
2:104
The disbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans do not like to see anything good revealed to you from your Lord.
God reserves His mercy for whomever He chooses. The generosity of God is great. (2:105

Occasion of Revelation

:

Ibn Abbas, the leading commentator, is narrated to have said that the early Muslims, when the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) was speaking and teaching them the divine verses and commandments, often asked him to speak slowly so that they could comprehend the material well and could have opportunity enough to ask .their questions

For this purpose, then, they applied the phrase /ra'ina/ derived from the root /ar-':ra'a/ ' to give respite ',which means give us respite, wait for us ' .(1) But the Jews took the same word from the Arabic root /ar-ra'unah/ used with the meaning of ' foolhardiness, thoughtlessness, foolishness ', which means:
' make foolishness us '
and suggests a perversive insult.

It is also noteworthy that the phrase /ra'ina/, besides what was stated before, is not free from impoliteness in meaning, because this term may also be derived from the word /mura'at/, which means that
'you should observe us and we will observe you likewise

Here, the Jews had found something by which they could ridicule and make fun of .the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and the Muslims

Aa-Durr-ul-Manthur, vol. 1, pp. 252-253 (1) Jami'-ul-Bayan, by Muhammad-ibn- (2) Jarir Tabari, vol. 1, pp. 469-473

The first verse of the above verses was revealed to prevent this derisive usage of .the word, It commanded the believers to use /unzurna/ instead of /ra'ina/ which had the same meaning, but was plain and unambiguous.
Thus, the enemies could not .misuse it Some other commentators have said that the phrase /ra'ina/ was employed by some Jews in whose language it had an .uncomplimentary meaning .

They repeated it again and again Some others of the commentators have also said that the Jews pronounced /ra'ina/ instead of saying /ra'ina/ and, addressing the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) with that term which meant
' our cattle-tender, .shepherd ',
As in "ra'i al ghanam". ridiculed him These occasions of revelation do not contrast with each other, so that all of them .may be right

It is well understood from this verse that the Muslims, should be careful to avoid giving the enemies of God (and by extension enemies of the truth, fidelity and righteousness) any pretext, because they may misuse even one short sentence against them
The Qur'an advises the Muslims to avoid uttering even the smallest common word which they might transform into a term of reproach in order to weaken the spirits of .the Muslims
They should be careful not to select words which have multiple or ambiguous meanings that may be misused by the enemies to mock them thereby but rather should choose appropriate, unambiguous .words They must guard themselves against the cynical trick of using words which sound complimentary to the ear but have a hidden .barb in them

When Islam is so meticulous that it does not let Muslims give their enemies pretext for these little things, the duty of Muslims is clear for greater and more important subjects, both concerning their interior .affairs and international matters.

Then, the Qur'an has bidden the Muslims not to use it anymore, since it contains a sense of impoliteness, besides the abusing .of it by the Jews

A Precise Meaning
The honorific and enlivening sentence /ya 'ayyuhalla¶ina 'amanu/ ' O' you who have Faith ', addressed to the believers, has .occurred 80 times in the Qur'an
The above verse is the first one which .contains this phrase It is interesting that this phrase has occurred only in the verses that have been revealed in Medina, viz. it is not seen in the Meccan verses.
It may be for the reason that with the emigration of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) to Medina, Muslims gathered together and it was then that the situation of Muslims became stabilized, especially when they formed a strong, powerful government. Hence, Allah (s.w.t.) addressed them with this phrase :" O' you who have Faith!" This phrase conveys another meaning, too. It indicates that now that you have Faith and have submitted to the truth, i.e. you have taken a covenant with Allah, you should obey Him according to the commandments that have come along with it. In other words, your Faith necessitates that you follow these .instructions accordingly

Peace be to those who repent and submit to the guidance of Allah.

And i will post a babylonian reflection that Allah seems to have shown us.
is it specifically referring to a person or warning people from becoming the embodiment of such? Or is it a prophecy warning the people from this sorcery or witch? are we going to refrain from this method of communication or not?

Isn't it better to speak a word straight to the point being respectful, sincere and true to Allah?

[Scimitar]

The Muslims stance against usury is actually a pretty good idea, not original to Islam, and not inseparable from it. I would also push for universal health care and universal basic income (implemented as a tax refund).

But no, we won't all "submit to God"... so you can forget about that part. Instead of bashing heads against each other, why don't we try to find a way to co-exist, and join side by side with the muslims and secular and other religions to topple wealth disparity and even things out.

we did, in Jerusalem, then the crusades happened and that was the end of peaceful coexistence... ever since then, this world has been in turmoil, and picking up momentum in the process... it's all gonna lead to a high pitched crescendo, then the media will convince the sheeple that we've reached the point of no return!

And the USofA will drop a nuke.

And that's democracy for you :D in the real world, we call this hypocrisy (wink wink nudge nudge)

Scimi

[Abz2000]

The sorcery of babylon and the power of illusion, i have also added the images that come to my mind when reading - do you like it?
:

Ye are hereby invited to repent and save urselves.


The Woman on the Beast
1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great wh£re that sitteth upon many waters:*

2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.*

3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness:
And I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy , having seven heads and ten horns.*

(Count the total number of beast heads on the scarlet throne (one is just a harp), and notice the purple crown, the precious stones, the scarlet tail cloth, and the gold necklace).

4And the woman was arrayed in purple*
and scarlet colour,*
and decked with gold*and precious stones and pearls,*
having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:*

5And upon her forehead*was*a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.*

Land of Hope and Glory,
Mother of the Free,
How shall we extol thee, who are born of thee?
Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set;
God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet,God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet.

"Land of Hope and Glory"*is a British patriotic song, with music by*Edward Elgar*and lyrics by*A. C. Benson, written in 1902.

Hellfire Club*was a name for several exclusive*clubs*for high society*rakes established in*Britain*and*Ireland*in the 18th century.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Club

Portrait of*Francis Dashwood, 15th Baron le Despencer*by*William Hogarthfrom the late 1750s,
parodying Renaissance images of*Francis of Assisi.
The Bible has been replaced by a copy of the erotic novel*Elegantiae Latini sermonis, and the profile of Dashwood's friend*Lord Sandwichpeers from the halo.

...a satirical "gentleman's club" which was known to ridicule religion, catching onto the then-current trend in England of blasphemy.

Such clubs were rumoured to be the meeting places of "persons of quality"[2]*
who wished to take part in immoral acts,
and the members were often very involved in politics.*

After his Club was disbanded, Wharton became a Freemason, and in 1722 he became the Grand Master of England.

In*the United Grand Lodge of England,
a member of the Royal Family is often the Grand Master,
he may also appoint a Pro Grand Master

6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

The Mystery Explained

7And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

8The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,*when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.*

9And here*is*the mind which hath wisdom.*

The Queen's Coronation Oath (from the Order of Service for the Coronation)The Queen having returned to her Chair, (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 1952, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen:

Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?
And the Queen answering:*I am willing.
The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and the Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:
Archbishop:*Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of

1.the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
2. Canada,
3. Australia,*
4.New Zealand,*
5.the Union of South Africa,*
6. Pakistan,*
7. and Ceylon,

(total seven kingdoms, proxied via seven "subject rulers")*

and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen:*I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop.*Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen:*I will.
Archbishop:*Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?*

...... The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
*10And there are seven kings: *five are fallen, and one is,*and*the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
11And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.*
12And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.*
13These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.The Victory of the Lamb
14These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him*are*called, and chosen, and faithful.
15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the wh£re sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
*16And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the wh£re, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.*17For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

1And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
*2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
*3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins , and that ye receive not of her plagues.*
5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities
.*
6Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
*7How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: *for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
*8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong*is*the Lord God who judgeth her.
Lament over Babylon
9And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
*10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city!
for in one hour is thy judgment come.
11And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:*
12The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,*
13And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.*
14And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.*
15The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,*16And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!*
17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,*18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What*city is*like unto this great city!*
19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

The Saints Rejoice
20 Rejoice over her,*thou*heaven, and*ye*holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

21And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast*it*into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee ; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft*he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;*
23And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.*
24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

3And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.*
4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and*tohis throne.
*6And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God,
that they should feed her there
a thousand two hundred*andthreescore days......

Flag of Wales.

.......2And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as*the feet*of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.*3And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.*

I NO LIKE BABYLON SORCERY.
I LIKE WORD OF GOD.
U LIKE?

36.*Now when (the embassy) came to Solomon, he said: "Will ye give me abundance in wealth? But that which Allah has given me is better than that which He has given you! Nay it is ye who rejoice in your gift!
37.*"Go back to them, and be sure we shall come to them with such hosts as they will never be able to meet:
We shall expel them from there in disgrace, and they will feel humbled (indeed)."
38.*He said (to his own men): "Ye chiefs! which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me in submission?"
39.*Said an 'Ifrit, of the Jinns: "I will bring it to thee before thou rise from thy council: indeed I have full strength for the purpose, and may be trusted."
40.*Said one who had knowledge of the Book: "I will bring it to thee within the twinkling of an eye!" Then when (Solomon) saw it placed firmly before him, he said: "This is by the Grace of my Lord!- to test me whether I am grateful or ungrateful! and if any is grateful, truly his gratitude is (a gain) for his own soul; but if any is ungrateful, truly my Lord is Free of all Needs, Supreme in Honour !"
41.*He said: "Transform her throne out of all recognition by her:
let us see whether she is guided (to the truth) or is one of those who receive no guidance."
42.*So when she arrived, she was asked, "Is this thy throne?"
She said, "It was just like this;
and knowledge was bestowed on us before this,
and we have submitted to Allah (in Islam)."
43.*And he diverted her from the worship of others besides Allah.
for she was (sprung) of a people that had no faith.
44.*She was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: "This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass."
She said: "O my Lord! I have indeed wronged my soul:
I do (now) submit (in Islam), with Solomon, to the Lord of the Worlds."

9And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive*his*mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
*10The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrM6i8OlxrM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXbyDcHAUnQ

43.*The king (of Egypt) said:
"I do see (in a vision) seven fat kine, whom seven lean ones devour, and seven green ears of corn, and seven (others) withered.
O ye chiefs! Expound to me my vision if it be that ye can interpret visions."
44.*They said: "A confused medley of dreams: and we are not skilled in the interpretation of dreams."4
5.*But the man who had been released, one of the two (who had been in prison) and who now bethought him after (so long) a space of time, said: "I will tell you the truth of its interpretation: send ye me (therefore)."46.*"O Joseph!" (he said) "O man of truth! Expound to us (the dream) of seven fat kine whom seven lean ones devour, and of seven green ears of corn and (seven) others withered: that I may return to the people, and that they may understand."
47.*(Joseph) said: "For seven years shall ye diligently sow as is your wont: and the harvests that ye reap, ye shall leave them in the ear,- except a little, of which ye shall eat.
48.*"Then will come after that (period) seven dreadful (years), which will devour what ye shall have laid by in advance for them,- (all) except a little which ye shall have (specially) guarded.
49.*"Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people will have abundant water, and in which they will press (wine and oil)."

REPENT, AND SUBMIT TO THE KINGDOM AND RULE OF GOD.
YOU CANNOT FRUSTRATE HIM IN THE LEAST.

The lion, the witch, and the wardrobe.
The problem is that some of them don't believe lucy when she tells them that there's a magical eternal land beyond the wooden box, the learned and wise professor believes her, and edmund eats of her sorcery and becomes intoxicated by lust and tries to betray them to the witch.

She (the wicked witch of the west) calls herself the queen of narnia, but she's really not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TpWAxs_yR8

[Scimitar]

George Galloway is a Muslim now?

Check this out:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kycpOE6zkOU

Scimi

[greenhill]

Muslims stance against usury is actually a pretty good idea, not original to Islam, and not inseparable from it.

How do I put it?

Being muslim is to be submissive to Allah.

Allah sent the prophets before Muhammad (pbuh) Jesus and Moses preaching the religion, (same religion hence islam too!) The message is pretty much the same, no usury for the Jews, no usury for the Christians and guess what? No usury for the Muslims, either. So, you are right, not original to the Quran or prophet Muhammad. Just reiterated. But when the paths taken by the followers of the previous scriptures moved away from the dictates of the Quran, they by default were not submissive to it, hence 'cannot' be called muslims....


:peace:

[gurufabbes]

This subject and event is actually, as explained in my introduction, one of the reasons that brought me here.

Like many here in Paris (even though I'm an expat), the events of 2 weeks ago (especially the hostage taking at the Hypercacher) made me afraid and angry. Dealing with these feelings I think are difficult, particularly in an environment where last week the soldiers and police were out in full force, around "lieux de culte" including my local synagogue.

I understand that most Muslims condemn it, as they do with the other events, but what does that change? If the people involved aren't really Muslims as you understand it, then they won't listen to any condemnations, and if they are, then there is a problem within the Muslim communities of Europe that they will have to either deal with, or face repercussions from an infuriated populace that will only listen to "don't amalgamate or make all Muslims responsible for the few" for so long.

My two cents.

[InToTheRain]

What is happening in the Middle East is not the world of Western intelligence, or some conspiracy theory. Even regarding this link, is there any proof? Think critcally.

Critically thinking :) Jean Marie Le Penn has a more credible voice in regards to his countries political affairs than you do.

Also there is room for reasonable doubt for example no blood splatter:
http://beforeitsnews.com/events/2015...g-2433538.html


Also Reporter admits blood was put there ( lol ):
http://www.shtfplan.com/conspiracy-f...there_01092015

Fact is Muslims gained nothing from this atrocity. In all Europe France is a country where Islam has been accepted most so it's possible drastic measures need to be taken to curb the Islamization of France:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...h-Germans.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...h-Germans.html


The grim and bleak reality of it all is that even perchance this "conspiracy" was true we are are powerless to do anything against it. We have been fed lies many times before for political games at play (eg Iraq War ) and it's now gotten to the stage where the powers that be can blatantly lie in our face knowing we can do nothing about it. We will just huff and puff and go back to sleep. So I understand the people that dance to the tune of their leaders because the alternative is probably harder to bear.

Having said all that I am not jumping to conclusions on the matter; just voicing different perspectives on the matter :)

[LearnIslam]

Hey learntodissislam, are you gonna stop being a shill or what?
Have you never read the Quran or biography of the prophet Muhammad pbuh?

I have. And I know about his stories as well.

Do you not know that his job was to establish the Rule of Allah (who is the Creator of the heavens and earth) and was harrassed by people like you in Makkah?
The law of the land is legislated by the King of the land, and the True King is Allah (Lord of the two easts and Lord of the two wests), we as creation are not meant to be mafia bosses carving out illegal and corrupt domains.

This was the job of all the prophets Abz2000. But what I am pointing is that the corruption of what you hope to defend is done by 'Muslim' leaders. All this thing of Charlie Hebdo is one thing, when it happens there are protests and anti-protests, but what about the leadership in the Middle East? Is there an anti-ISIS protest from leaders?

I asked this for the same reason - which leaders embody the Islamic ideals. If we have to turn this forum into a place to bash the West for its genuine faults, you can. But many of the problems are in-house. Who set up the Shias and Sunnis, was it the prophet Muhammed? Or the Creator?

I didn't come to disrespect your faith or the Creator's word.

[LearnIslam]

Critically thinking :) Jean Marie Le Penn has a more credible voice in regards to his countries political affairs than you do.

Also there is room for reasonable doubt for example no blood splatter:
http://beforeitsnews.com/events/2015...g-2433538.html


Also Reporter admits blood was put there ( lol ):
http://www.shtfplan.com/conspiracy-f...there_01092015

Fact is Muslims gained nothing from this atrocity. In all Europe France is a country where Islam has been accepted most so it's possible drastic measures need to be taken to curb the Islamization of France:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...h-Germans.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...h-Germans.html


The grim and bleak reality of it all is that even perchance this "conspiracy" was true we are are powerless to do anything against it. We have been fed lies many times before for political games at play (eg Iraq War ) and it's now gotten to the stage where the powers that be can blatantly lie in our face knowing we can do nothing about it. We will just huff and puff and go back to sleep. So I understand the people that dance to the tune of their leaders because the alternative is probably harder to bear.

Having said all that I am not jumping to conclusions on the matter; just voicing different perspectives on the matter :)

I don't blame the common Muslim whose daily task in life is to keep faith, and go about his day - like anyone else. But to think that the problems in the Middle East are the doing of the West is a crutch for the harsh reality it is. My accounts are not from the media alone, but from first hand accounts of many people. Don't imagine that speaking about your faith in a manner that is patronizing is in accordance to the will of the Creator.

The problem in this world is verily that - everyone thinks they are right, but the word of the Creator is used in vain. If you take this as me targeting Muslims, I can only tell you that it isn't. Would you accept any Muslim country taking to the ways of a Western country? Certainly all places want their culture. In fact some Muslim countries would consider anything so far a threat that they don't allow the freedom of expression for this reason.

On the other hand, you can post venom on the follies of the West, and look at the situation biased, or you can look at it objectively. If the French and Germans think it is a threat to their national identity, is it completely the lies of the media, or happening? If Germany became completely Islamic would you be happy?

This is why I asked : If a son says bad things about his father over something, would you seek him to be enriched by his own familial roots, or by yours? Don't play number games with the Creator's words, and don't hijack it as specific to a culture - Arab, Jew etc. This is the very reason for the conflicts.

[LearnIslam]

This subject and event is actually, as explained in my introduction, one of the reasons that brought me here.

Like many here in Paris (even though I'm an expat), the events of 2 weeks ago (especially the hostage taking at the Hypercacher) made me afraid and angry. Dealing with these feelings I think are difficult, particularly in an environment where last week the soldiers and police were out in full force, around "lieux de culte" including my local synagogue.

I understand that most Muslims condemn it, as they do with the other events, but what does that change? If the people involved aren't really Muslims as you understand it, then they won't listen to any condemnations, and if they are, then there is a problem within the Muslim communities of Europe that they will have to either deal with, or face repercussions from an infuriated populace that will only listen to "don't amalgamate or make all Muslims responsible for the few" for so long.

My two cents.

The Muslims living by their day are certainly unconnected to this atrocity. The wolf children don't respect anything - they will mock the Creator, his word and over that misinterpret it and disprove it (disprove the misinterpreted form).

Now the thing is, if this forum, which I assume well is for discussing Islam, wants to merely look at cases where the Western media lied (which it does), or where one French personality changed to Islam, then there is no real discussion - because I don't deny those or disagree with a person choosing the word of the Creator.

But the reality of the Muslim world seems to be seen as less important - the leadership, the environment of intellectual thought, the in fighting between factions with imaginary ideas, all these are happening.

Perhaps I should have put my 'religion' as 'Islam' in the profile. Because some seem to think I came here for a flame war, or disrespecting. The truth is the disrespecting men are already holding the reign.

There is nothing to be happy (or post) that some director became Muslim. The Creator's radiance is more brilliant than a thousand suns. All these number games of how influential a religion is in a country, or converting others is only number games. It uses the word of the Creator in vain, and hijacked.

Would a good man give charity merely so that his name goes higher in the view of others? Would you tell an orphan bad things about his parents? Would you come into a neighbors house and make them uncomfortable by patronizing them about their own ways of life?

If the Muslim forum members want to see the worst about the West and post it here, it is no different from an agreeable talk on disrespecting someone done en mass.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another response, this time from Norman Finkelstein.

Charlie Hebdo is sadism, not satire

World renowned political science professor says he has 'no sympathy' for staff at Charlie Hebdo

By Mustafa Caglayan

NEW YORK

In Nazi Germany, there was an anti-Semitic weekly newspaper called Der Stürmer.

Run by Julius Streicher, it was notorious for being one of the most virulent advocates of the persecution of Jews during the 1930s.

What everybody remembers about Der Stürmer was its morbid caricatures of Jews, the people who were facing widespread discrimination and persecution during the era.

Its depictions endorsed all of the common stereotypes about Jews – a hook nose, lustful, greedy.

"Let's say, ... amidst all of this death and destruction, two young Jews barged into the headquarters of the editorial offices of Der Stürmer, and they killed the staff for having humiliated them, degraded them, demeaned them, insulted them," queried Norman Finkelstein, a professor of political science and author of numerous books including “The Holocaust Industry” and “Method and Madness.”

"How would I react to that?," said Finkelstein, who is the son of Holocaust survivors.

Finkelstein was drawing an analogy between a hypothetical attack on the German newspaper and the deadly Jan. 7 attack at the Paris headquarters of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, that left 12 people dead, including its editor and prominent cartoonists. The weekly is known for printing controversial material, including derogatory cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and 2012.

The attack sparked a global massive outcry, with millions in France and across the world taking to the streets to support freedom of the press behind the rallying cry of "Je suis Charlie,” or “I am Charlie.”

What the Charlie Hebdo caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad achieved was "not satire," and what they provoked was not "ideas," Finkelstein said.

Satire is when one directs it either at oneself, causes his or her people to think twice about what they are doing and saying, or directs it at people who have power and privilege, he said.

"But when somebody is down and out, desperate, destitute, when you mock them, when you mock a homeless person, that is not satire," Finkelstein said.

"That is, I give you the word, sadism. There’s a very big difference between satire and sadism. Charlie Hebdo is sadism. It’s not satire"

The "desperate and despised people" of today are Muslims, he said, considering the number of Muslim countries racked by death and destruction as in the case of Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen.

"So, two despairing and desperate young men act out their despair and desperation against this political pornography no different than Der Stürmer, who in the midst of all of this death and destruction decide its somehow noble to degrade, demean, humiliate and insult the people. I’m sorry, maybe it is very politically incorrect. I have no sympathy for [the staff of Charlie Hebdo]. Should they have been killed? Of course not. But of course, Streicher shouldn’t have been hung. I don’t hear that from many people," said Finkelstein.

Streicher was among those who stood trial on charges at Nürnberg, following World War II. He was hung for those cartoons.

Finkelstein said some might argue that they have the right to mock even desperate and destitute people, and they probably have this right, he said, "But you also have the right to say 'I don’t want to put it in my magazine ... When you put it in, you are taking responsibility for it."

Finkelstein compared the controversial Charlie Hebdo caricatures to the "fighting words," doctrine, a category of speech penalized under American jurisprudence.

The doctrine refers to certain words that would likely cause the person to whom they are directed, to commit an act of violence. They are a category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment.

"You are not allowed to utter fighting words, because they are equivalent of a smack to the face and it is asking for trouble," Finkelstein said.

"So, are the Charlie Hebdo caricatures the equivalent of fighting words? They call it satire. That is not satire. It is just epithets, there is nothing funny about it. If you find it funny, depicting Jews in big lips and (a) hook nose is also funny."

Finkelstein pointed to the contradictions in the Western world's perception of the freedom of the press by giving the example of the pornographic magazine Hustler, whose publisher, Larry Flynt, was shot and left paralyzed in 1978 by a white supremacist serial killer for printing a cartoon depicting interracial sex.

"I don’t remember everyone celebrating 'We are Larry Flynt' or 'We are Hustler,'" he said. "Should he have been attacked? Of course not. But nobody suddenly turned this into a political principle of one side or the other."

The West's embrace of the Charlie Hebdo caricatures was because the drawings were directed at and ridiculed Muslims, he said.

The characterization by the French of Muslims as being barbaric is hypocritical considering the killings of thousands of people during France’s colonial occupation of Algeria, and the French public's reaction to the Algerian war from 1954 to 1962, according to Finkelstein.

The first mass demonstration in Paris against the war "did not come until 1960, two years before the war was over," he said. "Everybody supported the French annihilatory war in Algeria."

He said French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre's apartment was bombed twice in 1961 and 1962, as was the office of his magazine, Les Temps Modernes, after he came out in full force against the war.

Finkelstein, who has been described as an "American radical," said the pretensions of the West about Muslim attire exposed a dramatic contradiction in the face of the West’s attitude toward natives in lands they occupied during colonialism.

"When Europeans came to North America, the thing they said about the native Americans was that they were so barbaric, because they walked around naked. The European women were wearing three layers of clothes. Then they came to North America, and decided that the native Americans were backward because they all walked around naked. And now, we walk around naked, and we say that the Muslims are backward because they wear so much clothes," he said.

"Can you imagine anything more barbaric? Banning women wearing headscarves?" he asked, referring to the 2004 ban on headscarves in French public service jobs.

Finkelstein’s work, accusing Jews of exploiting the memory of Holocaust for political gain and criticizing Israel for oppressing the Palestinians, has made him a controversial figure even within the Jewish community.

He was denied a tenure as a professor at DePaul University in 2007 after a highly publicized feud with fellow academic Alan Dershowitz, an ardent supporter of Israel. Dershowitz reportedly lobbied the administration of DePaul, a Roman Catholic university in Chicago, to deny him tenure.

Finkelstein, who currently teaches at Sakarya University in Turkey, said the decision was based on "transparently political grounds."

http://www.aa.com.tr/en/news/452396--norman-finkelstein-charlie-hebdo-is-sadism-not-satire

[InToTheRain]

I don't blame the common Muslim whose daily task in life is to keep faith, and go about his day - like anyone else. But to think that the problems in the Middle East are the doing of the West is a crutch for the harsh reality it is.

I don't remember saying the meddling of the West is the sole reason for the political unrest in the Mid-East although they have contributed to it. You can throw in Saudi, Iran and Russia into the quagmire to name a few. Saudi in particular have been causing having causing havoc internally.

My accounts are not from the media alone, but from first hand accounts of many people. Don't imagine that speaking about your faith in a manner that is patronizing is in accordance to the will of the Creator.

No sure what you are reffering to.

The problem in this world is verily that - everyone thinks they are right, but the word of the Creator is used in vain.

That is not the problem. The problem may arise in how you deal with those that disagree with you. Extremists in both sides, Muslims and Non-Muslims, tend to take extreme measures. Extremists on the Muslim side have killed more Muslims then they have non-Muslims. The Irony is extremists on both ends use each other to push their political agenda but it's the people in between that suffer. The Majority of Muslims (90+%) are against them; watch this for better understanding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjRI2AsF3h0

If you take this as me targeting Muslims, I can only tell you that it isn't. Would you accept any Muslim country taking to the ways of a Western country?

I don't like it but this has happened and is still happening. Imperial colonization of the West dug deep in Muslim lands and have sowed the seed of Sucalarism; overtly and covertly. Turkey is one country of Many which has been suffering as a result but Alhamdullilah recently started recovering:
http://1muslimnation.wordpress.com/2...ttoman-turkey/

Let's not forget South Asia, the regime is evident on the Queens head at times:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...day-visit.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...a-Empire-.html

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...94_468x286.jpg

More on Imperialistm West:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/western...nization/28604

In fact some Muslim countries would consider anything so far a threat that they don't allow the freedom of expression for this reason.

You are free to express yourself anywhere but not with Impunity; not even in the West.

On the other hand, you can post venom on the follies of the West, and look at the situation biased, or you can look at it objectively.

I don't see how your being objective if you called me biased purely for speaking against the Western Goverment.

If the French and Germans think it is a threat to their national identity, is it completely the lies of the media, or happening?

I didn't say I think it's a lie.

If Germany became completely Islamic would you be happy?

I would be happy for them.

This is why I asked : If a son says bad things about his father over something, would you seek him to be enriched by his own familial roots, or by yours?

Depends on what is being classified as "Bad".

Don't play number games with the Creator's words, and don't hijack it as specific to a culture - Arab, Jew etc. This is the very reason for the conflicts.

I don't know what you are reffering to.

It's important to remember the world didn't begin last Month. Blame for our current problem with extremism can be attributed to leaders in both Muslim and Non-Muslim countries.

Reuters had reported in 2012 that the FSA’s command was dominated by Islamic extremists, and the New York Times reported that same year that the majority of the weapons that Washington were sending into Syria was ending up in the hands Jihadists. For two years the U.S. government knew that this was happening, but they kept doing it.
And the FSA’s ties to Al-Nusra are just the beginning. In June of 2014, Al-Nusra merged with ISIS at the border between Iraq and Syria.
So to review, the FSA is working with Al-Nusra, Al-Nusra is working with ISIS, and the U.S. has been sending money and weapons to the FSA even though they’ve known since 2012 that most of these weapons were ending up in the hands of extremists. You do the math.

[UPDATE 9.03.14]: Retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney admits: “We Helped Build ISIS”: Note that the first version of this video uploaded (here) was quickly taken down. To insure that this clip does not disappear we have provided a secondary download link here. So if the video below isn’t playing then use that link and upload it elsewhere. [Video link]

http://www.exploringthenews.com/cons...sis-power-done

[Abz2000]

Has anyone here watched district b-13 ultimatum?

[Abdullahh]

First I'd like to say Rest In Peace to the Muslim police officer killed while defending those who hated his religion and spat on it. That man was a truly good Muslim and we cannot allow him to be forgotten and rest in peace to the other victims as well. I believe those killed didn't deserve to die, but they were certainly looking for trouble and they got just that. I can't understand what goes through the mind of such people, honestly. Finally, why is it that we must get on TV and condemn these terrorist attacks? It's almost as if if we do not condemn these acts publicly and reassure the non-Muslims we aren't all AK-47 toting extremists then we are probably just that!

We live in a world full of injustice and hypocrisy. Did any Christians get on TV and assert that they aren't all terrorists after what Anders Breivik did? No, they did not. And what he did was far worse - killing mostly teens and 60+ of them.

[Abz2000]

You build an understanding in people when you define moderates as those who proclaim half of the truth and extremists as those who proclaim the complete truth.
Naturally, out of defensiveness, each conflicting side will shy into the extremeties of their differences and will magnify the galvanising points - unless they are able to look at it frome a wider perspective and justly proclaim the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

But then, if you accuse them too of being "extreme" simply because they espouse the whole truth, those with street-wise and inquisitive minds who bother to do some research will come to a clearer understanding of the situation and see you as a deceiver, and will be willing to fight you for their convictions.

That is the situation that the deluded kafir political and media establishment is currently creating, and the munafiqs and people pleasers slithering amongst the ranks of the believers are also helping.

When you use tools such as "prevent" to bribe/coerce mosque leaders to go on an anti-jihad crusade - while you abuse the biggest military industrial complex on the planet to terrorize people whilst preaching disbelief in the plain truth and non-violence.
The youth just wisen-up and those with dignity wake up.



Karma's not necessarily a b*tch since God's grace is abundant for those who seek it.

Either way, the truth marches on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence in the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.

(Chorus)Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery*gospel*writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal";
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush*the serpent*with his heel,
Since God is marching on.

(Chorus)Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Since God is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

Rouhani and obama:

And there is no god except the Creator of the heavens and the earth, to whom we shall all one day return.

Doublethink*is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct*social contexts.[1]

*Doublethink is related to, but differs from,*hypocrisy*and*neutrality.
Somewhat related but almost the opposite is*cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind.
Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

George Orwell*coined the word*doublethink*in his*dystopian*novel*Nineteen Eighty-Four*(1949);
doublethink is part of*newspeak.
In the novel, its origin within the typical citizen is unclear; while it could be partly a product of*Big Brother's formal*brainwashing*programmes,[2]*

The novel explicitly shows people learning Doublethink and*newspeak*due to*peer pressure*and a desire to "fit in", or gain status within the Party — to be seen as a loyal Party Member.
In the novel, for someone to even recognize–let alone mention–any contradiction within the context of the Party line was akin to*blasphemy, and could subject that someone to possible disciplinary action and to the instant social disapproval of fellow Party Members.

"In spite of that awful work?"
"Awful?*They*don't find it so. On the contrary, they like it.
It's light, it's childishly simple. No strain on the mind or the muscles. Seven and a half hours of mild, unexhausting labour, and then the*soma*ration and games and unrestricted copulation and the feelies. What more can they ask for?*.....

....."I was wondering," said the Savage, "why you had them (epsilon semi-morons) at all–seeing that you can get whatever you want out of those bottles.
Why don't you make everybody an Alpha Double Plus while you're about it?"
Mustapha Mond laughed. "Because we have no wish to have our throats cut," he answered. "We believe in happiness and stability. A society of Alphas couldn't fail to be unstable and miserable.
Imagine a factory staffed by Alphas–that is to say by separate and unrelated individuals of good heredity and conditioned so as to be capable (within limits) of making a free choice and assuming responsibilities. Imagine it!" he repeated.
The Savage tried to imagine it, not very successfully.
"It's an absurdity. An Alpha-decanted, Alpha-conditioned man would go mad if he had to do Epsilon Semi-Moron work–go mad, or start smashing things up. Alphas can be completely socialized–but only on condition that you make them do Alpha work.
Only an Epsilon can be expected to make Epsilon sacrifices, for the good reason that for him they aren't sacrifices; they're the line of least resistance. His conditioning has laid down rails along which he's got to run. He can't help himself; he's foredoomed. Even after decanting, he's still inside a bottle–an invisible bottle of infantile and embryonic fixations.

Each one of us, of course," the Controller meditatively continued, "goes through life inside a bottle.
But if we happen to be Alphas, our bottles are, relatively speaking, enormous. We should suffer acutely if we were confined in a narrower space. You cannot pour upper-caste champagne-surrogate into lower-caste bottles. It's obvious theoretically. But it has also been proved in actual practice. The result of the Cyprus experiment was convincing."


..... Science is dangerous; we have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled."
"What?" said Helmholtz, in astonishment. "But we're always saying that science is everything. It's a hypnopædic platitude."
"Three times a week between thirteen and seventeen," put in Bernard.

"And all the science propaganda we do at the College ....
…""Yes; but what sort of science?" asked Mustapha Mond sarcastically. "You've had no scientific training, so you can't judge. I was a pretty good physicist in my time. Too good–good enough to realize that all our science is just a cookery book, with an orthodox theory of cooking that nobody's allowed to question, and a list of recipes that mustn't be added to except by special permission from the head cook.
I'm the head cook now. But I was an inquisitive young scullion once.
I started doing a bit of cooking on my own. Unorthodox cooking, illicit cooking.
A bit of real science, in fact." He was silent.
"What happened?" asked Helmholtz Watson.
The Controller sighed. "Very nearly what's going to happen to you young men. I was on the point of being sent to an island."

The words galvanized Bernard into violent and unseemly activity.
"Send*me*to an island?"
He jumped up, ran across the room, and stood gesticulating in front of the Controller. "You can't send*me. I haven't done anything. lt was the others. I swear it was the others."
He pointed accusingly to Helmholtz and the Savage. "Oh, please don't send me to Iceland. I promise I'll do what I ought to do. Give me another chance. Please give me another chance."
The tears began to flow. "I tell you, it's their fault," he sobbed. "And not to Iceland. Oh please, your fordship, please …" And in a paroxysm of abjection he threw himself on his knees before the Controller.
Mustapha Mond tried to make him get up; but Bernard persisted in his grovelling; the stream of words poured out inexhaustibly.
In the end the Controller had to ring for his fourth secretary."Bring three men," he ordered, "and take Mr. Marx into a bedroom. Give him a good*soma*vaporization and then put him to bed and leave him."The fourth secretary went out and returned with three green-uniformed twin footmen. Still shouting and sobbing. Bernard was carried out.

"One would think he was going to have his throat cut," said the Controller, as the door closed.
"Whereas, if he had the smallest sense, he'd understand that his punishment is really a reward. He's being sent to an island. That's to say, he's being sent to a place where he'll meet the most interesting set of men and women to be found anywhere in the world. All the people who, for one reason or another, have got too self-consciously individual to fit into community-life. All the people who aren't satisfied with orthodoxy, who've got independent ideas of their own. Every one, in a word, who's any one. I almost envy you, Mr. Watson."

Seems some people aren't willing to live a narrow life of pretend and deceit. Have you ever sat and wondered why they would leave materially comfortable lives in countries others are desperately trying to reach because of currency value?

Have you ever wondered why they're willing to risk their lives in the wilderness?
Is it just because of their willingness to conform with anything they are told by anyone?
Rather we find that most of them led rebellous lives and had checkered pasts, so why the sudden willingness to conform to the death when necessary?
Or is it because they put things in the correct perspective and can't be contained and subjugated by false laws made by men whom they see as equal to or worse than themselves, but once they see the truth, and being street-wise, willingly submit to the authority of God Whom they realise is just, fair and beyond flouting?
They risk much in anticipation of high rewards.

Are they stupid or are they wiser than their secular counterparts?

The 3,000 American soldiers President Obama has sent back into Iraq are to start training the remaining 26 brigades of the Iraqi Army all over again, without anybody asking what went wrong between 2003 and 2014.

Why is it that Isis recruits can fight effectively after two weeks' military training and two weeks' religious instruction, but the Iraqi Army cannot? Maybe the very fact of being foreign-trained delegitimises them in their own eyes and that of their people.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/war-with-isis-the-west-needs-more-than-a-white-knight-9946580.html

Or maybe there's more than meets the eye.

"Only those of His servants with*knowledge have*fear*of*Allah.*Allah*is Almighty, Ever-Forgiving."
(Qur'an*35:28).

[gurufabbes]

Finally, why is it that we must get on TV and condemn these terrorist attacks? It's almost as if if we do not condemn these acts publicly and reassure the non-Muslims we aren't all AK-47 toting extremists then we are probably just that!

We live in a world full of injustice and hypocrisy. Did any Christians get on TV and assert that they aren't all terrorists after what Anders Breivik did? No, they did not. And what he did was far worse - killing mostly teens and 60+ of them.

I think the point is simple. The Muslims are a minority in Europe that has mostly recently arrived, and are disproportionately involved in problems.

Hence when something like this happens, again and again, people wish to know why? Why do the other religious groups not do this? Is it their religion itself? Is it inherently violent?

Given that, you may say Muslim leaders shouldn't feel the need to condemn, but I would suggest they do, given that it's your image that stands to be damaged.

[Abz2000]

Given that, you may say Muslim leaders shouldn't feel the need to condemn, but I would suggest they do, given that it's your image that stands to be damaged.

In order to put it into the proper proportion and context, they'd first need to condemn themselves for not having done their best to establish Islam, the french government for not establishing the Law of God as revealed to His final Messenger, then the cartoonists for commiting blasphemy worthy of capital punishment, and then the french public for not condemning the blaspheming cartoonists, then accept that the cartoonists received justice according to God's Law.
It were better for them had they all repented.

[gurufabbes]

In order to put it into the proper proportion and context

More like your personal context, rather than one that I think non-Muslims recognize or adhere to.

the french public for not condemning the blaspheming cartoonists, then accept that the cartoonists received justice according to God's Law.

Well, that is one strong opinion. One again, that is odds with beliefs of those beyond your circle, I assume.
Probably the same kind of people to claim to know Gd's will and how it should be applied with vigilante justice. The ones that perhaps believe that Islamic cultural norms apply to non-Muslims and should be imposed if need be.

Anyway, as long as people like you don't live in my neighbourhood, I encourage you to have any views that you would like.

[ardianto]

Given that, you may say Muslim leaders shouldn't feel the need to condemn, but I would suggest they do, given that it's your image that stands to be damaged.

If your son doing mischief and disturbing the neighbors, would you go to the streets and shout "I condemn my son mischief!". Or you would choose another way, scold your son and advise him to stop his delinquency and then become a better boy?.

I am sure, you would choose the second way.

The cause why Muslim leaders look like less doing in condemn terrorism is because those terrorists are Muslims, and condemn them on the street is not effective way. So Muslim leaders choose to try to make them leave their extreme view and become the tolerant Muslims.

There are many things that Muslim leaders have done to counter terrorism, such as teaching tolerance to the school children and other young Muslims, make de-radicalization program for terrorists who arrested. However, what the Muslim leader are doing get less attention from medias. So the world don't know about it.

[Pygoscelis]

In order to put it into the proper proportion and context, they'd first need to condemn themselves for not having done their best to establish Islam, the french government for not establishing the Law of God as revealed to His final Messenger, then the cartoonists for commiting blasphemy worthy of capital punishment, and then the french public for not condemning the blaspheming cartoonists, then accept that the cartoonists received justice according to God's Law.
It were better for them had they all repented.

Hmm. This again. France is not an Islamic country. The people there (most of them anyway) are not Muslims. They see your God as imaginary. They don't feel compelled to obey or conform to your imagination.

This is not an Islamic country we are talking about. If you want to go to this country, it is their norms that will need to be followed, not yours. If you can't tolerate that, then simply don't go there. Simple really. Your text above is the equivalent of a gay nudist going to Saudi Arabia and saying everybody needs to be walking naked in the street and having gay pride parades.

[Pygoscelis]

The cause why Muslim leaders look like less doing in condemn terrorism is because those terrorists are Muslims, and condemn them on the street is not effective way. So Muslim leaders choose to try to make them leave their extreme view and become the tolerant Muslims.

But are terrorist Muslims really Muslims? I think that is the point. To distinguish what tolerant muslims feels is actual Islam from what terrorist Muslims push and claim to be Islam.

[The-Deist]

But are terrorist Muslims really Muslims? I think that is the point. To distinguish what tolerant muslims feels is actual Islam from what terrorist Muslims push and claim to be Islam.

Islam is perfect :D we human beings or creation arent
Brother May you be guided
Aameen :D

[ardianto]

But are terrorist Muslims really Muslims? I think that is the point. To distinguish what tolerant muslims feels is actual Islam from what terrorist Muslims push and claim to be Islam.

Muslims who commit terrorism and kill innocent people are still Muslims. But what they do is against the Islamic teaching itself. So, it's a duty of other Muslims to guide those terrorist to leave their violence action and back to the right way.

[LearnIslam]

I don't remember saying the meddling of the West is the sole reason for the political unrest in the Mid-East although they have contributed to it. You can throw in Saudi, Iran and Russia into the quagmire to name a few. Saudi in particular have been causing having causing havoc internally.



No sure what you are reffering to.




That is not the problem. The problem may arise in how you deal with those that disagree with you. Extremists in both sides, Muslims and Non-Muslims, tend to take extreme measures. Extremists on the Muslim side have killed more Muslims then they have non-Muslims.

Please understand all this label of 'Muslim' and 'non-Muslim' are based on you, for the Creator it is not that way. Someone can call themselves a Muslim, but you will deny they are a Muslim based on their lifestyle. Likewise, someone can reject you are a Muslim. I am talking about the Muslim heartland - its troubles are caused by weak leadership. It is not about saying something here that is politically correct.

All these rules they are making, are not even Islamic, regarding restraining women, or the human thought process for example. I have a complete understanding of what is happening, I am not in ignorance of it. And I am not blaming Muslims either. But most faithful Muslims are unfortunately supporting the very monster that is destroying them.

What do we know of the Creator or His will? Yet, see the level of arms and weapons that are raised over there in the Middle East. The world sees this and judges Muslims, it sees the lack of free thought and judges Muslims, it sees how quickly offended groups become and provoke Muslims. Remember the Charlie Hebdo incident was an example of this. Now there are protests all over the world over it.

These are NOT your issues. You know the message of the prophet and what he stood for.

You are free to express yourself anywhere but not with Impunity; not even in the West.

The issues of the past, or of the British rule over the Indians for instance, the treasures stolen are again not the issues. Have you seen in school how the child that is odd is teased the most, despite it hurting him? This is what Europe is trying with Muslims. They are provoking them into the image they want to portray of them.

I don't see how your being objective if you called me biased purely for speaking against the Western Goverment.

The wise man stays out of harms way. We can talk reams and reams of the Western governments. They have a different code of morality.

I didn't say I think it's a lie.

So you are telling me the Germans and French are right in thinking that Islam wants to take over their countries?

I would be happy for them.

You would be happy for them because it strengthens the legacy you have come to associate with. If the Muslim world became Christian, many people in the West would be happy for the same reason. But neither of this is noble - that we look at the worst in another culture, and call it the standard of it, and then patronize and insult them, giving them our reasons to change. So in short, spreading the word of the Creator is important, but not in the manner of conquest. Those who conquest, do their work of setting their rules (even if claim it to be the Creator's, its still their interpretation!).

Every culture claims to have received the absolute truth.

Depends on what is being classified as "Bad".

Would you say bad things to a boy about his father because of his father's few habits, or phase of madness?

If you are using the worst aspects of the West to give them reason to convert to Islam you are doing this. Because you expect to shun their legacy and enrich your own in their country. Western ideals aren't first western. The Islamic world wasn't always like this - the process of thought has existed in its good form in the West and the Muslim world, at different times. Ask yourself from your own learning if you think it is the will of the Creator to have these imams preach the way they do, to have the Muslim leadership the way it is. Is it the will of our Creator to go disturb the people in other countries by telling them to change their way of life? This is like telling bad things about the boy's father to him, and turning him as your son. It is not right, for your enemies are telling bad things about you as well - taking from the worst that is happening in the Muslim world.

I am not against any peoples of the world. That is against the will of the Creator.

I don't know what you are reffering to.

It's important to remember the world didn't begin last Month. Blame for our current problem with extremism can be attributed to leaders in both Muslim and Non-Muslim countries.

My posts aren't to bring blame. Neither are those 'Muslim' leaders carrying the actual signature of the Creator's message to the Arabs. The Creator doesn't like someone who uses His name for their vain ends.

In this bad leadership, the Muslims call upon powers like the Americans to help them. The Americans seek to establish what governance will be convenient for them to do trade in oil. Their values are different, so Muslims start hating them. You see this problem is like a drunk man, who beat his wife and children. A neighbor came in and tied the drunk man up and the woman and children were happy to have received such help. But the neighbor stayed in the house, and started demanding things, he started insulting the children and the wife for their poor choice of a husband, father etc.

[BeTheChange]

wow...i haven't logged in for a couple of days and this thread is still hot with many new posts! Can't keep up...:embarrass

[Abz2000]

Look pygo, i see through your false constructs of national division based on racism - while at the same time attacking ideology, it doesn't hold water.
If it was about nationalism (racism), then it would have been better that you said, all humans are of a different composition due to race, let each live with his own race.
If it had been about ideology, i would have understood your form of thinking if you said - let the kuffar (unrepentant criminals by God's Law) live among kuffar and let those repentant Law abiding citizens who accept the universal Law of their Creator live among the believers without invading each other's sovereignty.

But you and i both know that it's ultimately God who is the controller of affairs in this universe which is why you seem to be content with an undefined state of anarchy where oppression by kuffar is ignored and believers' lives are in a state of continuous instability.
Even after i moved thousands of miles away you still harrassed me and have used shills to attempt to cause chaos when things were going smoothly.
Maybe it's because in your heart of hearts you know the truth but attempt to suppress and cover it with adorned deception.
One of the meanings of the term "kufr" is - to cover.

I warn you of severe consequences for your anarchy in God's dominion.

I recall a dialogue between the final Messenger of God to mankind and a greedy liar who attempted a rule of deceit, tve exchange between them speaks volumes.

Our narration takes place when Haroun, better known as Musailama, chieftain of the Christian tribe of Hanifa laid claim to the prophethood.
Many of his tribe had recently embraced Islam, however, it became apparent that all was not well amongst the tribe when Musailamah sent a letter to Prophet Muhammad, praise and peace be upon him, that falsely proclaimed he too was a prophet.
The letter read:
From: Musailamah, the Messenger of Allah
To: Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah,
Peace be upon you. I have been given the power to share your authority.
Half of the earth is ours, and half belongs to the Koraysh, even though they are sinners."

Having read the letter, the Prophet, praise and peace be upon him, asked its bearers if this was also their opinion and they affirmed that it was.
Then the Prophet, praise and peace be upon him, spoke saying, "By Allah, if it was not forbidden for envoys be put to death, I would indeed sever your heads!"
The Prophet, praise and peace be upon him, called for his scribe and dictated a letter for the envoys to deliver to Musailamah.
He commenced: From: Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah
To: Musailamah, the liar.
Peace be upon he who follows guidance. Indeed, the earth belongs to Allah.
He causes whom He will of His worshipers to inherit it.
Only those who fear their Lord will prosper.

The dominion, soverignty and right to Legislate is God's. Be a good and repentant Law abiding Citizen on God's earth- or suffer the consequences of your criminal actions.

Warning 3 of 3: remove the obstacle or the bannister's gonna rot - time is of the essence.

[Pygoscelis]

But you and i both know that it's ultimately God who is the controller of affairs in this universe

No. You and I do not both know that. You believe that. I believe your God is imaginary. Can you see that? Can you accept it?

For the sake of peaceful co-existence, I can try to understand how you see things and try to meet you on that level. I can see how dear these beliefs are to you, so I can try to tread lightly and be respectful of what I see as your delusion. It is clearly important to people of faith, giving sense of purpose and support to many people, so I see no reason to trample on it, until it becomes militant. But that doesn't mean I in any way believe it myself.

I wonder if you can understand that those of us who are not Muslim, honestly and truly do not believe your Allah is real. To us, Islam is something you learned from culture, parents, or community. You can think us wrong, blind, oblivious to what you see as obvious truth, or whatever, but do you at least realize that we really think this?

I truly wonder sometimes if you, and other devoutly religious people can. I can sort of relate, because growing up I had a hard time believing that anybody could actually believe in Jehovah or Allah or other Gods. I thought people were just going along with it for the sake of culture, to play along for the sake of community. I didn't think anybody actually believed it. Now I know that you do. I know it is important to you and for some of you is the very basis of who you are as people. I try to respect that.

I wonder if you can do the same in the opposite direction. Do you understand why those of us who are non-believers in Islam, who are Kufir as you put it, would not want to adopt the doctrines and directives of Islam? It shouldn't be hard to understand. And when you seek push it into France or other non-Muslim lands it should be respected, just as we should respect that you truly see it as commands from the creator of the universe and should respect that especially if we are in Islamic countries.

You don't seem to want to give the same respect that you demand.

Even after i moved thousands of miles away you still harrassed me and have used shills to attempt to cause chaos when things were going smoothly.

What in the world are you talking about? I assure you I am not stalking you.

I warn you of severe consequences for your anarchy in God's dominion.

Again, you don't seem to understand that I don't believe in your God, so any threats from your God have no weight at all in my mind, or in the mind of any non-believer. Threats of hell and promises of heaven are only as effective as belief in such things.

And I would again point out the double standard here. Muslims and Christians go on and on about how non-believers will be punished, and how we deserve to suffer for not believing what you do. Non-believers are mocked and hated by these religions to the extreme, over and over, in the very doctrines of your religions. And yet, you complain about cartoons of your prophet. Again, you feel it is important to dish it out, but you can't take it. You say "severe consequences for your anarchy in God's dominion". I say there is no such dominion. There is only the dominion of the mortal beings of the earth, and it is up to us to make that the best place possible.

If you can't accept that many of us are not muslims, will never be muslims, and will not accept or comply with your religious directives, then you make it so we can't co-exist, and you make it so we need to keep you out and shut you down. If you do this, you justify the very anti-muslim sentiment and action that you complain about. i have heard it said that Islam includes the directive that "there is no compulsion in religion". Why can't that be front and centre?

[Abz2000]

The only reply i can give is:
Sit down and think sincerely.
And wonder why your assumed leaders and idols have no share in the sovereignty of God, why they follow His servants from city to city like dogs seeking bones and tempt them while at the same time calling them liars.
And then Repent, and Submit to the Laws of Almighty God.
The clock is ticking.
Allah will judge between us in truth.

[M.I.A.]

No. You and I do not both know that. You believe that. I believe your God is imaginary. Can you see that? Can you accept it?

For the sake of peaceful co-existence, I can try to understand how you see things and try to meet you on that level. I can see how dear these beliefs are to you, so I can try to tread lightly and be respectful of what I see as your delusion. It is clearly important to people of faith, giving sense of purpose and support to many people, so I see no reason to trample on it, until it becomes militant. But that doesn't mean I in any way believe it myself.

I wonder if you can understand that those of us who are not Muslim, honestly and truly do not believe your Allah is real. To us, Islam is something you learned from culture, parents, or community. To us, Allah and all the rest of it are all in your head, and no more real than Zeus, Thor, ghosts, werewolves, or leprechauns. You can think us wrong, blind, oblivious to what you see as obvious truth, or whatever, but do you at least realize that we really think this?

I truly wonder sometimes if you, and other devoutly religious people can. I can sort of relate, because growing up I had a hard time believing that anybody could actually believe in Jehovah or Allah or other Gods. I thought people were just going along with it for the sake of culture, to play along for the sake of community. I didn't think anybody actually believed it. Now I know that you do. I know it is important to you and for some of you is the very basis of who you are as people. I try to respect that.

I wonder if you can do the same in the opposite direction. Do you understand why those of us who are non-believers in Islam, who are Kufir as you put it, would not want to adopt the doctrines and directives of Islam, which we see as recycled myths and commands from an imaginary being? It shouldn't be hard to understand. And when you seek push it into France or other non-Muslim lands it should be respected, just as we should respect that you truly see it as commands from the creator of the universe and should respect that especially if we are in Islamic countries.

You don't seem to want to give the same respect that you demand.



What in the world are you talking about? I assure you I am not stalking you.



Again, you don't seem to understand that I don't believe in your God, so any threats from your God have no weight at all in my mind, or in the mind of any non-believer. Threats of hell and promises of heaven are only as effective as belief in such things.

And I would again point out the double standard here. Muslims and Christians go on and on about how non-believers will be punished, and how we deserve to suffer for not believing what you do. Non-believers are mocked and hated by these religions to the extreme, over and over, in the very doctrines of your religions. And yet, you complain about cartoons of your prophet. Again, you feel it is important to dish it out, but you can't take it. You say "severe consequences for your anarchy in God's dominion". I say there is no such dominion. There is only the dominion of the mortal beings of the earth, and it is up to us to make that the best place possible.

If you can't accept that many of us are not muslims, will never be muslims, and will not accept or comply with your religious directives, then you make it so we can't co-exist, and you make it so we need to keep you out and shut you down. If you do this, you justify the very anti-muslim sentiment and action that you complain about. i have heard it said that Islam includes the directive that "there is no compulsion in religion". Why can't that be front and centre?

I think atheism as a movement is rather constrictive. As long as you don't buy into the stereotypes people will be associating with it... And its obvious champions.. Not literally but you get what I'm trying to say.

But you lack respect for Islam for sure, IMO Islam is as true as science.. It exists if you want it to or not.. If you understand it or not is also up to you.

The preconceived ideas you hold about Islam are in fact narrow minded and prejudiced.

But if we were perfect I doubt we would be having this conversation.. Thread.

I won't threaten you personally but Islam is a warning. All live and die..

But until you realise how the world works you probably won't fear anything or accept any niggles of conscience..

At least in Islam we have the pretence of piety and community.. That in itself is half the battle.. Like any relationship it requires a lot of work.

Or not.

[LearnIslam]

The only reply i can give is:
Sit down and think sincerely.
And wonder why your assumed leaders and idols have no share in the sovereignty of God, why they follow His servants from city to city like dogs seeking bones and tempt them while at the same time calling them liars.
And then Repent, and Submit to the Laws of Almighty God.
The clock is ticking.
Allah will judge between us in truth.

Such statements are the problem. These sorts of words are used by each faction that claims to represent the word of the Creator. And then it is enforced violently.

The understanding of the existence of the Creator is beyond the scope of logic, so I can't reason with Pygoscelis why it is true. It is experiential, not logical.

Regardless, what Pygoscelis said in post #214, has valid points.

Atheism also has two forms and the second is more prevalent among men and women of reason. The first is the arrogance of half-thought, the belief that religions were induced for political ends to a foolish mass, and the unyielding tendency to accept a moral Big Brother or entity to be answerable to. Of course this is not how the Creator is or should be thought of as.

The second form of atheism is the inability to accept what appears wrong. If I pointed you to a red wall, and insisted that it is blue, would you be able to accept? This is Pygoscelis' atheism, I think. And so, what is there for him to 'repent' from?

Is it not true that what you assume, of the Creator, you have been taught to accept. Many of the things are beyond the scope of what can be verified in this lifetime. Is it not? That is why it is called 'faith' or 'belief'.

But I agree with these difference we shouldn't insult or patronize each other. If we feel we have a point, we can speak. Any civilization flourishes with this exchange of ideas, not insults or violence. And the lack of this is what has brought the wars in the Muslim heartland. They will trade weapons with foreigners to destroy their brothers. This is why foreign countries are so easily involved in the wars there. If people are scared of their rulers, these are the consequences. State rule shouldn't be done in an atmosphere of intimidation.

[M.I.A.]

Such statements are the problem. These sorts of words are used by each faction that claims to represent the word of the Creator. And then it is enforced violently.

The understanding of the existence of the Creator is beyond the scope of logic, so I can't reason with Pygoscelis why it is true. It is experiential, not logical.

Regardless, what Pygoscelis said in post #214, has valid points.

Atheism also has two forms and the second is more prevalent among men and women of reason. The first is the arrogance of half-thought, the belief that religions were induced for political ends to a foolish mass, and the unyielding tendency to accept a moral Big Brother or entity to be answerable to. Of course this is not how the Creator is or should be thought of as.

The second form of atheism is the inability to accept what appears wrong. If I pointed you to a red wall, and insisted that it is blue, would you be able to accept? This is Pygoscelis' atheism, I think. And so, what is there for him to 'repent' from?

Is it not true that what you assume, of the Creator, you have been taught to accept. Many of the things are beyond the scope of what can be verified in this lifetime. Is it not? That is why it is called 'faith' or 'belief'.

But I agree with these difference we shouldn't insult or patronize each other. If we feel we have a point, we can speak. Any civilization flourishes with this exchange of ideas, not insults or violence. And the lack of this is what has brought the wars in the Muslim heartland. They will trade weapons with foreigners to destroy their brothers. This is why foreign countries are so easily involved in the wars there. If people are scared of their rulers, these are the consequences. State rule shouldn't be done in an atmosphere of intimidation.

that kind of reminds me of a certain part in the quran..

link is something i found on google of no particular importance other than it being the first i came across looking for it.

http://www.iqrasense.com/stories-of-...-18-60-82.html


although nobody can claim guidance today, we still follow authority.


and maybe a little more at 28:15 and onwards

on repentance

http://quran.com/28


a walls a wall i guess.

[ardianto]

Just curious. Before the attack happened, was there Muslim community representative who protest the cartoon directly to Charlie Hebdo?. I mean came to Charlie Hebdo office to talk with those who responsible for the cartoon.

[LearnIslam]

M.I.A

Your post tells nothing. Abz2000 was talking about repentance. That is being Holier than thou.

Those who hijack the Creator's word are the ones who should repent. The ones to blame for the negative image of Islam are the Imams and the leaders on the Muslim heartland.

This discussion has gone far enough, yet, there isn't a real analysis of things.

[LearnIslam]

Just curious. Before the attack happened, was there Muslim community representative who protest the cartoon directly to Charlie Hebdo?. I mean came to Charlie Hebdo office to talk with those who responsible for the cartoon.

Good question.

[Abz2000]

Allah is Al Quddus (Holy)
I am a son of Adam (a human being).

Adam pbuh was not created to be perfect, that is why Allah gave guidance and made His grace abundant for those who ask Him.

Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Repenting, Most Merciful.

We said: "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Quran Ch.2, Verses 37-38

My job is to inform, and try my best to convey the message in the clearest of terms, Allah judges.
I myself am human, and if i had knowledge of the unseen i would have probably multiplied all good for myself and the matter would have been settled between us long ago.
Allah is the most gracious, and His wrath is indeed something to take heed of. His respite is a blessing for those who take heed and submit to Him within that time, and a curse for those who are foolish enough to oppose Him.
And there is none to be likened unto Him, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, to whom we shall all return.
Time is running out.

Let us be wise.

[M.I.A.]

M.I.A

Your post tells nothing. Abz2000 was talking about repentance. That is being Holier than thou.

Those who hijack the Creator's word are the ones who should repent. The ones to blame for the negative image of Islam are the Imams and the leaders on the Muslim heartland.

This discussion has gone far enough, yet, there isn't a real analysis of things.

I lol'd.

All religions can be given a negative image to. The Jews can hardly be proud of isreal..

And yet, I know Jews.

Funny thing is that non religious people have not changed the situation either have they? Atheism for the fellow man...

I hope you see what I'm getting at here.

[Abz2000]

Comes as a result of compartmentalising people into separate sects based on lineage/drawn physical borders/blind prejudice/foolish obedience of obvious falsehood.

When we look at the scenario as mankind living on planet earth with our destinies so interconnected in this global age, we find that it's not just a case of race (blind clan worship)/ colonialist borders (soil worship - despite soil not having the ability to speak or legislate) and blind prejudice (just a result of ignorance, whether genuine or manipulated) or foolish obedience of obvious falsehood.

It is a case of finding and trying to understand where and what the truth is and then accepting it.
This doesn't just require seeing and hearing, it requires a study of all past experience, and future possibilities, and deep and serious pondering.

If i were to be transported 2000 years back and show someone a mobile phone, and then tell them that you can see the whole world through the glass screen in the palm of your hand, and that you could also see and hear people on the other side of the planet, and that it all happens via transfer of invisible signals in the air, and bounces of dishes suspended in the sky, a person would either reject it as the crazy ravings of a person with an incredible imagination, or would have to have developed and understanding from experience with such phenomena, or interaction with other people who described such outlandish types of things that had previously come to pass -that what i'm saying could be true or is true.
It would require the excercise of intellect along with a developed faith in such types of miraculous events from experience or from trust in the statements of people they held to be truthful.

We need to look at everything we've been through and all the self contradictory ways of life we've come across or studied, and i assure you that we will find that the guidance of our Creator is the truth and the best and most long term stable way.

And that He's not our enemy trying to exploit and abuse us but our sustainer and guide, and saviour from those who attempt to abuse and exploit us and from the evil consequences of our own actions.
He will without doubt raise us up one day and judge between us in truth.
It is those who achieve good in this short life and in eternity that are the successful, and those who live in anarchy and as a result, inevitably commit injustice that are losers in this life and in eternity.

My God is not karma (though it does exist as a law of God) since i know we'd have all been destroyed by now if it hadn't been for a tremendous amount of grace made available to us.
Let's ponder deeply and if there is any doubt, look at all the other ways of life carefully and we wont have to keep fighting since we'll come to the truth if it's God's will.
We won't be pushing our own agenda nor that of our parents or tribe, or people who claim to represent soil or that of people who are thirsty for power.

I don't claim to be an angel or a person who has a share in the authority of God.
But i sure as heaven and hell know by now that God exists, knows the unseen, has full power and control over His affairs, that none else has such attributes, and that we'll all be raised and judged one day.
Peace to those who sincerely seek and follow the guidance.


You couldn't make this stuff up before the age of electricity and satellite dishes, think.

When matters are entrusted to competent [the Mahdi], Almighty God will raise the lowest part of the world for him, and lower the highest places. So much that he will see the whole world as if in the palm of his hand. Which of you cannot see even a single hair in the palm of his hand?

In the time of the Mahdi, a Muslim in the East will be able to see his Muslim brother in the West, and he in the West will see him in the East

His [the Mahdi's] aim is to establish a moral system from which all superstitious faiths have been eliminated. In the same way that students enter Islam, so unbelievers will come to believe.

When the Mahdi appears, Allah will cause such power of vision and hearing to be manifested in believers that the Mahdi will call to the whole world from where he is, with no*postman*involved, and they will hear and even see him.

[LearnIslam]

Allah is Al Quddus (Holy)
I am a son of Adam (a human being).

Adam pbuh was not created to be perfect, that is why Allah gave guidance and made His grace abundant for those who ask Him.



My job is to inform, and try my best to convey the message in the clearest of terms, Allah judges.
I myself am human, and if i had knowledge of the unseen i would have probably multiplied all good for myself and the matter would have been settled between us long ago.
Allah is the most gracious, and His wrath is indeed something to take heed of. His respite is a blessing for those who take heed and submit to Him within that time, and a curse for those who are foolish enough to oppose Him.
And there is none to be likened unto Him, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, to whom we shall all return.
Time is running out.

Let us be wise.

Those who are wise don't involve faith with fear. The Creator is graceful and doesn't intimidate.

Those who are warring and hurting people are intimidating others. Is that the path? How do you teach someone - is it by saying "if you don't do what I say, the Creator will banish you in his wrath".

It is by doing this over years that the Muslim world has become this way. Your leaders have you afraid.

The Creator's glory is undeniable, it doesn't require treats and intimidation to be established.

[LearnIslam]

I lol'd.

All religions can be given a negative image to. The Jews can hardly be proud of isreal..

And yet, I know Jews.

Funny thing is that non religious people have not changed the situation either have they? Atheism for the fellow man...

I hope you see what I'm getting at here.

Who is the Jews, who are the Muslims, who are you? If you were born as a Jew would the word of the Creator be different?

I don't see what you are getting at actually. I am saying that the leadership in the Muslim world has hijacked the true*word and has bad leadership. This fact is very true. Yet, here too we have only talks of accepting Islam.

If you are creating noise and quarreling in your house everyday with your own family members, how will you convince your neighbors and others in the street block of the merit of your lifestyle?

I don't judge Islam as bad, because I know the truth. But the reflection of it comes to the world from it's flag bearers - the leaders in the Muslim world and the Imams

[LearnIslam]

Abz2000

The Mahdi will establish the word of the Creator, not your interpretation of it. Nor will it happen this way that everyone will convert to Islam.

The word of the Creator transcends (goes beyond) a particular language or culture, but it is quickly hijacked that way. It will be understood when it happens.

[M.I.A.]

Who is the Jews, who are the Muslims, who are you? If you were born as a Jew would the word of the Creator be different?

I don't see what you are getting at actually. I am saying that the leadership in the Muslim world has hijacked the true*word and has bad leadership. This fact is very true. Yet, here too we have only talks of accepting Islam.

If you are creating noise and quarreling in your house everyday with your own family members, how will you convince your neighbors and others in the street block of the merit of your lifestyle?

I don't judge Islam as bad, because I know the truth. But the reflection of it comes to the world from it's flag bearers - the leaders in the Muslim world and the Imams

yes the word is/was different.. for a different time and people.

http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nora/html/3-67.html ...googled and cited but not for any particular reason.


i cant really question leadership.. if it was easy then everybody would do it.

i feel as though you expect a very thorough answer, but the question might as well be what is the meaning of life? ...and i cant tell you anything apparently.

life is noise and quarrel, thats what real relationships are.. highs and lows.

i dont need to convince anybody of my lifestyle.. its far from perfect..

?

if anybody sees any good in me, they are free to take it.

but mostly somebody else does the washing up...


who am i to decide what is bad and good?

funny thing is that i wash up at work like there is no tomorrow.


its a double edged sword right?

like reading a sentence and forgetting the one before it.


...i cant really question leadership ....but you say that the leaders and imams are the flag bearers.

they are not..

i am responsible for who i am, just as you are responsible for who you are.


you say you know the truth..

what truth is it?


i always say, knowledge is not power... application of knowledge is power..

there is a difference between the two and it might as well be the proof of god.

(i can thoroughly believe that jesus pbuh never spoke for himself...although the implications are mind blowing)


all praise is due to allah swt alone, and he has no need of any of us.

yes there is a call towards monotheism and here in particular, islam..

but i dont know what you expect? seriously.. even if you find a public face that you can put in the media to better reflect your islam.

[Abz2000]

Alif. Lam. Ra.
These are verses of the Wise Scripture.

Is it a wonder for mankind that We have inspired a man among them, saying:
Warn mankind
and bring unto those who believe the good tidings that they have a sure footing with their Master?
The disbelievers say: Lo! this is a mere wizard.

Indeed your Master is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then He established Himself upon the Throne, directing all things.
There is no intercessor (with Him) save after His permission. That is Allah, your Master, so Serve Him.
Oh, will ye not be reminded?

(we learn that God is not the jolly father christmas image some of us seem to have mistakenly conjured in our minds).

Repent, Submit and receive assurance of Peace from God.
That's what the term Islam always has meant and will always mean.
In the complete and final scripture, and in the preluding scriptures.

To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth,
and the Day that the Hour of Judgment is established,
- that Day will the dealers in Falsehood perish!
And thou wilt see every nation bowing the knee
Every nation will be called to its Record:
"This Day shall ye be recompensed for all that ye did!"

Quran, Bowing the knee, Ch 45, V27-28

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth*in righteousness, and shall not return,
That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.
Isaiah Ch 45 V23

[LearnIslam]

yes the word is/was different.. for a different time and people.

Yes, it most certainly was - which is why I am asking the Arabs and their offshot to stop hijacking the word and threatening people, and making others uncomfortable in their own home countries. You want to start with the history of a country like Pakistan or see the Zoroastrian persecution for what it was, or the pressures evil Imams are putting on Europeans, which has lead to the unfortunate eruption of Muslims being alienated in Europe, then we can talk.

i cant really question leadership.. if it was easy then everybody would do it.

You can, and you should rather.

life is noise and quarrel, thats what real relationships are.. highs and lows.

Save the mushy talk. This is not a 'quarrel'.

you say you know the truth..

what truth is it?

I do, but I say it not in vain. The truth can't be realized by logic or conversation. There are Muslim leaders who know the truth as well, but the power of the evil Imams who are not actually following the word of Allah, but playing number games are popular. The leadership in the Middle East that allows Western powers to enter because of their own spinelessness are responsible. Yet you say you can't question leadership. This is the problem - leadership. I didn't come here to disrespect Islam.

[LearnIslam]

(we learn that God is not the jolly father christmas image some of us seem to have mistakenly conjured in our minds).

No he is not. But don't claim to know Him. If you realized, your reasoning wouldn't be the way it is.

Repent, Submit and receive assurance of Peace from God.
That's what the term Islam always has meant and will always mean.
In the complete and final scripture, and in the preluding scriptures.

God is not a gangster either, who threatens people to follow him giving grave consequences. In Isaiah 45:23, what is stated is a factual occurrence in the future. Don't imagine that you have the truth, or the Islam (the way it is followed today) is the truth. The prophecies are true, but don't imagine that it will happen in this sense that all Jews, Christians and ...ehm kafurs would turn to Islam out of fear or realization of their sole faults. Of course when he (Christ) comes you will see.

To make you think critically, Christians would hold that everyone would convert to Christianity, Muslims would hold that everyone to Islam, and Judaism would hold that everyone to their faith. What makes each think the other is wrong? It's just bias. The fact is the Truth transcends these boundaries. And neither is Arabic is the language of the Creator, it was only a means to give the message to the Arabs, like I type this in English.

[Abz2000]

Hmmm,
The double-speak is just flabbergasting, hopefully it's not with malicious intent despite it seeming so.

Please take the opportunity to read the Quran at least once.
It will inshaAllah open your mind a little.

And since the very relevant story of Jonah has already been made available previously and appears to have remained quite intact, it seems Allah didn't go into too much detail this time around, maybe read it through if possible and you'll notice a clear ultimatum.
It's only three pages.
http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/bible/jonah.pdf


Not sure what you're trying to imply by the term "gangster" - the word is usually applied to mujrimun, but if you mean it in the context of having a large group of people/angels under oneself, then yes, God has a big gang, one not to be overcome by any amount of effort, as stated in Surah al Muddatthir none can know the forces of thy Master but He.
Yet, even without the "gang", He can just will a thing and it is.
The "gang" just helps us understand things in human comparison, plurality, since people seem to sometimes become proud or arrogant due to the number of people they have at their beck and call, and plus, it doesn't befit the majesty of God to deal with minor issues Himself, He seems to have reserved most of that 'til the day when He takes full account, the day when everyone stands to full attention - quivering and without arrogance.

[M.I.A.]

Yes, it most certainly was - which is why I am asking the Arabs and their offshot to stop hijacking the word and threatening people, and making others uncomfortable in their own home countries. You want to start with the history of a country like Pakistan or see the Zoroastrian persecution for what it was, or the pressures evil Imams are putting on Europeans, which has lead to the unfortunate eruption of Muslims being alienated in Europe, then we can talk.




You can, and you should rather.



Save the mushy talk. This is not a 'quarrel'.




I do, but I say it not in vain. The truth can't be realized by logic or conversation. There are Muslim leaders who know the truth as well, but the power of the evil Imams who are not actually following the word of Allah, but playing number games are popular. The leadership in the Middle East that allows Western powers to enter because of their own spinelessness are responsible. Yet you say you can't question leadership. This is the problem - leadership. I didn't come here to disrespect Islam.

Its funny that you mention Pakistan.. Its history is rooted in Europe. Same as isreal. Maybe you were implying that..

Anyway it seems you over think our importance, history has seen this cycle countless times.. No doubt they are getting increasingly efficient at creating it :p

Funny thing is, if it were meant to be any different it would be..

Everybody is 'created' really.. Very hard to adjust to.

Although my view further highlights the importance of religion and maybe how they differ sometimes

[Scimitar]

That is the healthiest response that I have read so far.

you'll maybe like this?

this was a response to the Anti-Islamic movie a few years ago:

[muslimperson1]

France rightly banned the Niqqab - this is an extremist form of islam which is never mentioned in the Quran. Hijaab is mandatory and should be worn

All these personal freedoms yet eventually some lines must be drawn. If i could never see the faces of people I am talking to, be it professional or friendly, I feel as though the other person involved as a veil over me. I can not see facial expressions so can not guage any truth to her voice - and this could obviously have big effects depending on the situation. Though this will not be a huge problem, is inherently disadvantages everyone else.

I'm all for womens rights and the desire to do what you want ( I am incredibly left wing muslim). But overdressing is for me as problematic as under dressing. This isn't an attack on religion (how can it be if not mentioned and enforced in Quran ) but rather an attack on culture - a problem many muslim majority nations and advocates of the niqqab fail to speak of. It it not your religious obligation. The fact you are even considering it to completely hide your identity from the outside world voluntarily is actually in my opinion an example of distorted body image view - this seems to be a resounding reason I keep hearing of - that they get male attention and feel awkward. The problem is some men need to be educated etc etc, you shouldnt have to be the one to change unless true harm keeps coming your way
Good luck

[LearnIslam]

Its funny that you mention Pakistan.. Its history is rooted in Europe. Same as isreal. Maybe you were implying that..

Please understand I am an ally of Islam because it is the Creator's word. But think of this - you see Pakistan was a region of non-Muslim populations, it is now a Muslim majority. Has the country's progress been close to India? (the British ruled this region once and partitioned it). The leadership in Muslim countries is unreasonable, and militant. This is what I am trying to say. These leaders don't represent the word of the Creator.

Anyway it seems you over think our importance, history has seen this cycle countless times..

Which cycle?

Funny thing is, if it were meant to be any different it would be..

All things happen as per the will of the Creator, true. But the process of our lives and higher aspirations shouldn't be left stagnant or dormant.

[LearnIslam]

Please take the opportunity to read the Quran at least once.
It will inshaAllah open your mind a little.

I assure you I have read it :-) That is why I state whatever I have. I know it may be hard to see me as an ally, but I assure you that I am.

The leaders of the Muslim world are using the same threatening rhetoric you are. You cannot frighten people into the word - this is what the Muslim leadership is doing, not just against non-Muslims but against the factions of Muslims too - I made the gangster comment in this light.

The Creator is not like a king. The Creator can't be really compared to anything present. We mustn't speak of Him in vain, let alone use His name for political agendas.

[greenhill]

wow...i haven't logged in for a couple of days and this thread is still hot with many new posts! Can't keep up...

... hard to keep up...:statisfie

Mainly from the finer points brought up on the matter. Also with so many things happening islamic or not, terrorists or not, all being lumped into the 'extremist islam' bundle that with every new happening, everything under the islam banner gets thrown into the spotlight. From its leadership all the way down... How do we start a conversation or even a discussion when everything is up for scrutineering?

The problem that I see is that there is a 'movement' that seems to have islam in its sights. To slowly but surely break it down and create confusion amongst the ranks.

As I said earlier in my post here, these little acts like the publishing of the cartoon is done to get a reaction from the 1 billion odd muslims from around the world. Someone will react. When they do, the public reaction machinery against islam goes into motion. This is not the end of it. There will be other 'schemes' that will be thought about and implemented in due course to incite more reaction from the muslim community just because they can do it, regardless of the potential consequences. When the reaction eventually comes, shouts against islam and their extremists ways will once again be heard....

It's all part of the agenda.

On something different, I have read about the decreasing numbers of people attending churches etc. despite the 'loosening up' of the practice and beliefs. Christians were supposed to circumcise (but abandoned the practice as it was a sure sign of being a follower of the Scriptures) and can be killed for it. Wearing clothing that covers the 'aurat' (like the muslim women are suposed to do) also got left behind leaving only the nuns to wear it.... why? Drinking alcohol was also not allowed (America tried to ban alcohol during the prohibition) but was not successful in keeping it up. Easter was supposed to be a period for fasting, again no longer practiced. Still, despite the relaxed laws, many people still outgrew the religion and the idea of Jesus being crucified for the sins of mankind is the easiest 'get out of jail' free card anyone can give. Even this idea has not convinced many and the churches are still left with a declining number of followers.

Islam on the other hand has not changed very much, despite the 'upgrades' of other religions. It has remained true to the message (not all believers follow the message in the true spirit of what it is meant to be, granted). At worst, when they manipulate it to serve themselves in power. Allah will have them accountable for their actions.

With this in mind, it is imperative that something needs to be done to check the spread of islam. And this is what is happening.


Just my strong opinion.


:peace:

[Abz2000]

God
is not a gangster either, who threatens people to follow him giving grave consequences. In Isaiah 45:23, what is stated is a factual occurrence in the future.
Don't imagine that you have the truth,
or the Islam
(the way it is followed today)
is the truth.

The prophecies are true, but don't imagine that it will happen in this sense that all Jews, Christians and ...ehm kafurs would turn to Islam out of fear or realization of their sole faults. Of course when he
(Christ)
comes you will see.

Hmmm....... truly mind boggling.....
do i read it without the brackets.....
or do i accept both brackets in context of the reference to God?
Or do i do the best thing and take it as a cue to get my mind racing and start researching the truth?
The swearing and taking name in vain cliche is also familiar to a certain mindset.
Creeping evangelism has been detected in many forms on this forum itself, but if this were a specimen i'd give it to ya that it's a first.
As someone who works with computers, i keep remembering the "mozilla" browser from nsa that installs malware codes. Rings alarm bells....... (is it lesser of the two "evils" taqiyyah with fingers crossed? Or a useful nudge pointing at the thorns that strew the path?).
Better to be honest and sincere, and judge and guide by what Allah has revealed.
Don't get me wrong, the first things i download when i flash my phone are the Quran, the Bible and the Sahih hadith - since they contain the clues to the future, (and the future is why we strive at present) i try to be sincere and delve through them for what might be the truth - and the intellect is a useful tool.

The Creator is not like a king. The Creator can't be really compared to anything present. We mustn't speak of Him in vain, let alone use His name for political agendas.

Which is why i humbly asked you to read the Quran,
He (Most Exalted and Perfect) refers to Himself as:

Al Malik Al Haqq - The True King.
Al Malik Al Mulk - The King of The Kingdom/Dominion.
And in Surah Al Hashr as
Al Malik - The King (amongst other beautiful qualities and names).
And on the Day of Judgement, He gathers all the humbled and frightened tyrants before Him and asks: Li-Man-il-Mulk Al-Yawm - Who's is the Kingdom this Day?


Regarding brother greenhill's comment on the fact that the truth remains strong in it's pristine condition despite it being portrayed as strange - well, the strangers ultimately receive the glad tidings for their steadfast perseverance on the truth.

Here's a standing ovation received by who'da thunk in - Denmark!!!

:)



And here's an interesting one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJENp68YBKY

[Abz2000]

Charlie Hebdo bombshell! Suicided officer’s family denied access to autopsy

Posted by*Kevin Barrett*on January 26, 2015

Something is rotten in Paris

The mother of Helric Fredou, “suicided” Charlie Hebdo investigator

by*Hicham Hamza,
translated by*Kevin Barrett,*Veterans Today Editor

*(1/25/2015 8:48 pm Paris time )

–*Exclusive!
Panamza has contacted the mother of Helric Fredou – the Police Commissioner charged with preparing a report on the family background of Charlie Hebdo – who was found dead with a bullet in the head just hours after the attack.

I asked for the autopsy report and was told: “You won’t get it.”

Friday, January 16, Panamza published*the disturbing testimony of the sister of police officer Helric Fredou,*whose mysterious “suicide” continues to be ignored by the national media.
Nine days later, it was the mother’s turn to bring new revelations.*
Fredou’s Mother Contacted by the author, she said that at first she was “enormously shocked” that Minister of the Interior Bernard Cazeneuve had not passed her his condolences. The Interior Minister maintained, she said, an excellent relationship with her deceased son.

From 2010 to 2012, the two men were brought together to work at Cherbourg, one as deputy mayor of the city, the other in his capacity as chief commissioner. “I hope one day I cross paths with him*to tell him how very disappointed I was,” she added.

The*Elysee was also (oddly) unresponsive. Helric Fredou had been*responsible for – among other localités – *Corrèze including Tulle, historic stronghold of Francois Hollande.
Panamza will soon return with the*entirety of her testimony, collected through a telephone interview recorded Saturday, January 24.

In the meantime, here are seven key points:*

1 According to the mother of Helric Fredou, police officers with whom she spoke*expressly advised that she would not have access to the autopsy report. The Code of Criminal Procedure, however, provides that in any case of *legal autopsy (for suicide or suspicious death), any member of the family can make a request to the prosecutor.
“Give it up”*is the message being*sent to a bereaved mother who “wants to know the truth.”

2 * Helric Fredou’s service weapon was not equipped with a silencer.
Her mother has asked a basic question to his colleagues:
“Why didn’t you hear*anything when he was shot at about midnight?”
Laconic reply: “His office was well insulated.”

3 * According to his mother, Helric Fredou wanted to make*an important phone call after doing two things: debriefing “three investigators” who went out to*question the immediate family of a victim of the attack on Charlie Hebdo (in this case, the relatives of*Jeannette Bougrab –*Charb’s self-styled girlfriend – as was discovered and disclosed *by Panamza) and then checking “social networks.” It is at this point that Fredou would have made such an important deduction that he “wanted to keep working.”
Important point: the unidentified “commander” in the office that night *wanted to take charge of*debriefing investigators and writing the report, but Fredou insisted “It’s my job.”
The direct superior of Helric Fredou is Gil Friedman, director of the Regional Criminal Police, Limoges.

4 * According to police, Helric Fredou raised the barrel of his revolver to his forehead and the bullet remained inside the skull.

5 * Helric Fredou’s attending physician, *with whom his mother spoke Thursday, January 22, refuses to accept the picture*sketched by the handful of articles about Freidou’s death that*cited his alleged “depression” and supposed*“burn-out”.*

6 The mother wanted to know who made the last call to her son. Police reportedly retorted “We*are unable to say” before finally claiming that no such call had been*made.

7 * “Four Directors” of the police, specifically from Paris, met Helric Fredou’s mother to offer*condolences and try to convince her that her son was a “suicide”.

Finally, another odd fact*deserves to be reported here:
apart from the author of these lines, NO journalist has contacted – from January 8th onward – the mother or sister Helric Fredou to*try to shed light on*the case.

HICHAM HAMZA

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/26/fredou/

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another shooting

Copenhagen shootings suspect was 'known to police'

Suspect shot dead in Denmark’s capital after one person was gunned down at cafe and another at a synagogue

The gunman shot dead by police after a double terror attack on a cafe and a synagogue in Copenhagen that claimed two lives was known to Danish intelligence, the head of the country’s security service has said.

Jens Madsen said the suspected killer may have been “inspired by militant Islamist propaganda issued by IS [Islamic State] and other terror organisations”, but it was not yet known whether he had travelled to Iraq or Syria before the attacks.

The suspect was from Copenhagen but has not been named. He had been “on the radar” of the intelligence services, police said. They have recovered a weapon believed to have been used in the first attack.

Armed Danish police raided an internet cafe in a major operation in Copenhagen near the spot where officers killed the suspected gunman behind fatal shootings, local media said.

TV2, which reported from the scene, showed footage of armed officers in dark uniforms outside the internet cafe and said at least two people had been taken away by police. “It’s part of our investigation,” a police official told broadcaster DR.

The killings began at about 3.30pm local time on Saturday, when a man attacked the Krudttønden cafe during a debate featuring the controversial Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who had depicted the prophet Muhammad in cartoons. Finn Nørgaard, 55, a film director attending the event, was reportedly shot dead at close range after going outside for an unknown reason at the time the attacker struck.

At about 1am, 37-year-old Dan Uzan was killed while guarding the synagogue in Krystalgade during a bat mitzvah celebration. Two police officers were also hit, but their injuries were said not to be life-threatening.

The Danish prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, condemned what she called “a cynical act of terror” and said she was “happy and relieved that police have disarmed the suspected perpetrator behind the two shootings”. She said Denmark had “lived through some hours which we will never forget”.

Vilks, who was unhurt after the gunman was unable to enter the cafe, said he believed he was the target of the first attack.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/14/copenhagen-cartoonist-charlie-hebdo-style-attack

[M.I.A.]

Very sad, the recent shootings of three young Muslims in america probably deserve some space in this thread.

No room for double standards though I would hope.

[LearnIslam]

Abz2000

I haven't been in this forum for a few days. I want to highlight this that the Creator is indeed the true sovereign. When I state he is not like a king, it is in reference to kings/leaders today. They subjugate and hurt people who disagree with them. Things you do imagining to be the way of the Creator, aren't his way. But he is the most merciful - unlike kings or rulers. They fight and threaten people to kneel to them. The Creator's word is one and when the time comes all will kneel not in fear, but in realization.

Things you have learned since your boyhood could be things falsified. Pursue the Creator's word, not Islam, not Christianity, not some human-written laws claiming to belong to the Creator. The demonic and oppressive laws aren't from the Creator's word.

Also, Anjem doesn't have business trying to convert others, or spreading Islam when he hasn't learned the Creator's word in humility himself.