Paris Shooting

format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000

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?

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

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

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.

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

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk

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.

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.

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.

Peace

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

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

Good for you.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

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

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

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?

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

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

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

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.

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.

Greetings Hulk,

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk

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?

format_quote Originally Posted by 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.

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

Peace