Paris Shooting

Peace be with you Abz,

format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by h-n

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by LearnIslam

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by LearnIslam

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.

Greetings Muhammad,

format_quote Originally Posted by 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 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

Greetings Hulk,

format_quote Originally Posted by 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

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---

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:

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

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?

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

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.

Greetings Futuwwa,

format_quote Originally Posted by 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

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000

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

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

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?

Greetings Abz,

Are you some sort of comedian?

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H

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.