terror in Paris

[Ozdundee]

(CNN)After staying away from the news of the attack, Zunera Mazhar felt so outraged that she had to say something.

"Being a mother, having a 6-year-old daughter, how do I explain it to her? 'No, this is not us?' " said the Muslim from Virginia.

The immigration worker's powerful video message hit on the emotions some Muslims around the world were feeling: outrage, disgust and shame.

"I am just livid," said the 31-year-old. "I don't know why we feel that it's OK to kill innocent people in the name of protecting something that does not need or require protection. I am really sorry to the whole world as a Muslim that we have some ignorant people that have taken some very ignorant actions in the name of faith."

To be clear, Mazhar and other Muslims who spoke to CNN were not apologizing for their beliefs -- some are apologizing to the world on behalf of their religion, sullied by the few Muslims extremists who attacked French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo this week. Of the 12 people who died, four were cartoonists and one was a Muslim police officer on the scene.

Theresa Corbin, a self-described feminist, converted to Islam two months after September 11. The New Orleans resident wears a hijab and says she has felt more stares than normal after the Paris terror attack.

"I fear the attack will mean that people will be more likely to sneer at me, to call me names in public, or even attack me," she said. "But I hope that it means that people will ask me questions about my faith and that I can make it clear that these attacks have no place in Islam."

I'm a feminist and I converted to Islam

Perception is also playing into Ahmad Basel Burghul's mind. The 20-year-old student from Istanbul, Turkey, is no longer thinking of studying abroad in France. The attack made him suspect that some French might look upon Muslims differently after Wednesday's attack.

Meanwhile, Stephanie Dunbar Siam, an American living in Muscat, Oman, was initially angry at the "hijackers" of her religion. But she became angrier when she realized she would have to reassure the people around her that "This is not Islam."

"I want to reaffirm my intense alarm and disheartening at the deaths of the Charlie Hebdo staff members. But I will not apologize for my beliefs or my religion," she said.

Siam sees this time as an opportunity to educate people.

"It means I will persevere even harder to learn more about my faith so I can counter misunderstanding and discrimination in a positive manner, the way Prophet Mohammed did it."

[ghulam muhammed]

Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians than with Muslims

Around the time of the 2011 controversy over its Muhammed issue, the magazine’s editor noted that the publication had been sued 13 times by Catholic organizations but only once by a Muslim one. Below are some of the many Charlie Hebdo magazine covers taking aim at Christian icons and church leaders over the years:

http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has- ... h-muslims/

[anajmi]

If they had shut the newspaper down when it started posting those obnoxious caricatures, the cartoonists wouldn'tve died. It is the French Government's fault that the killings happened. I know, I know - "wahhabi wahhabi, salafi salafi".

[ghulam muhammed]

These Are The Charlie Hebdo Cartoons That Terrorists Thought Were Worth Killing Over

Charlie Hebdo gained notoriety in 2006 for its portrayal of a sobbing Muhammad, under the headline "Mahomet débordé par les intégristes" ("Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists"). Within its pages, the magazine published 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, bringing unprecedented condemnation from the Muslim world. The French Council for the Muslim Faith eventually sued the weekly for the cartoon. The issue has since been considered the one which positioned Charlie Hebdo as a target for terrorist attacks.

Before a French court sided with Charlie Hebdo in the lawsuit, in 2007, another cartoon was published with the text "Charlie Hebdo must be veiled!"

In 2011, headlined by a cartoon reading "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter," an issue invited Muhammad to be a "guest editor" for the weekly. The Charlie Hebdo offices were firebombed following its publication.

Charlie Hebdo's website was hacked following a 2011 cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad as gay.

The weekly received backlash again in 2012 after publishing a cartoon criticizing religious Muslims and Jews.

In a more recent issue, the magazine published a cartoon depicting a member of the Islamic State group beheading Muhammad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/0 ... 1&ir=India

But, as with the 2006 cover, the deeper controversy came on the next page with a satire of another movie, this time Innocence of Muslims, in which an ex-con paid people to act out scenes that had nothing to do with Islam before replacing the audio to create a terrible movie ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed. No one saw the movie at the time, but he posted a 14-minute video on YouTube and an anti-Muslim activist in Virginia translated it into Arabic and sent the link to activists in Egypt resulting in violent protests. The Charlie Hebdo cartoon depicts the prophet naked and in pornographic poses, and the French government urged the magazine not to publish the images. When the magazine refused, the French government closed embassies and consulates in about 20 countries as a precaution.

Not all the controversies have centered around depictions of men. In 2010, Charlie Hebdo supported France’s controversial law banning women from wearing burqas in public with the headline “Yes to wearing the burqa … on the inside!”—the intended meaning of which is pretty self-explanatory from the image.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/201 ... ained.html

[ghulam muhammed]

I read an interesting blog of Professor Juzar Bandukwala (Dawoodi Bohra who is ex-communicated) of Baroda as under :-

The Paris killings appear to have touched a raw nerve. To kill journalist / cartoonist when media is king , is foolish. Yet I beg to raise two serious issues. France and Britain are held substantially responsible for the tragedy in the Middle East. It starts with Skyes- Pikot drawing lines in the desert to divide the Arab world, into Iraq, Syria and other countries, without any thought to ethnic and tribal divisions. The helpless Kurds were divided into five different countries. All Britain and France wanted was oil and colonies. Iran's Mossadeq was overthrown and killed because he opposed the oil royalties that
Britain was getting, which was larger then the revenues Iran was receiving. The final result was the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iraq war of 2003 was really a Bush-- Blair fiasco. The price was paid by millions in Iraq. The overthrow of Gaddafi was a French move to control Libyan oil. Sadly it destroyed the African country with the highest per capita income.

In Syria, France played a major role in devastating that country, which was a secular citadel in region of religious fanaticism. Millions have died there, and about 3 million are refugees in other countries.

The Paris killers appear to be Algerian. About one million Algerians died in their fight against French colonialism.

Second point is a question I ask : Is freedom of expression a basic right, irrespective of consequences? Only the US has that right enshrined in their constitution. That is due to its history as a refugee colony for religiously exploited Europeans. Can I call a man a bastard and then say that I have a right of free speech? Muslims consider the Prophet as closer then their own fathers. Will they accept the type of cartoon lampoons against the Prophet in these French and Danish papers ?

J.S.Bandukwala

[fayyaaz]

"With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo “were equal opportunity offenders.” Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews. Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Muslim messaging is the primary goal and the outcome. And this messaging – this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture."


"Nor is it the case that threatening violence in response to offensive ideas is the exclusive province of extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam. Terrence McNally’s 1998 play “Corpus Christi,” depicting Jesus as gay, was repeatedly cancelled by theaters due to bomb threats. Larry Flynt was paralyzed by an evangelical white supremacist who objected to Hustler‘s pornographic depiction of inter-racial couples. The Dixie Chicks were deluged with death threats and needed massive security after they publicly criticized George Bush for the Iraq War, which finally forced them to apologize out of fear. Violence spurred by Jewish and Christian fanaticism is legion, from abortion doctors being murdered to gay bars being bombed to a 45-year-old brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza due in part to the religious belief (common in both the U.S. and Israel) that God decreed they shall own all the land. And that’s all independent of the systematic state violence in the west sustained, at least in part, by religious sectarianism."

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -cartoons/

[kimanumanu]

http://www.channel4.com/news/will-self- ... tire-video

[anajmi]

This is exactly what I had said in an earlier post on this very thread.

There is a limit to everything. Figure out what offends people and try not to cross that limit. The limit of Muslim tolerance is known to every one. Don't cross those limits.

And the educated fools amongst the bohra came out shouting "wahhabi wahhabi salafi salafi".

[anajmi]

Great thought from one of the participants in the clip

France - They keep talking as if they are a repository of human rights, freedeom, civilization liberte.... and think they are kind of enlightened in that way. In fact, they are a state like any other and they have been responsible for some incredibly barbaric and un-civilized things, so the rhetoric that we hear in the wake of incidents like this pitting civilization against barbarism is frankly non-sense. It's simply not-true

They also made a great point about the purpose that satire serves. Satire should be used to make those that are powerless better about themselves against those that are in power and oppressive in nature. Satire shouldn't be used to make an entire segment of the population feel bad about themselves. That is not the purpose of satire in the press.

[Muslim First]

46 examples of Muslim outrage about Paris shooting that Fox News can’t seem to find

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/46-e ... m-to-find/

[Muslim First]

Lassana Bathily, Muslim Employee At Kosher Market, Saved Several People During Paris Hostage Situation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/1 ... 48500.html

[JavedhJuma]

Please read these links.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... vation.htm

2.
http://qz.com/323700/what-cartoonists-a ... all-wrong/

Umma has to work together instead of against each other first. Without this unity, the West will divide and rule as we have seen in the case of Palestine and other Muslim countries.

Mullahs should go to school and learn ethics and principles of Islam, true Islam which is non-violent and all encompassing! Then they should preach! Subjugating women is not Islamic. Hazarat Bibi Khadija and Hazarat Aisha are core examples of freedom of women in Islam.

If Jews and Christians have accomplished this, there is no reason why we cannot!

[Ozdundee]

Ok so the point is if The west is responsible of political manipulation in the east , this act of terrorism wrapped in ideological outbursts is vindicated ? Game is now deuce or draw is that what the strategy is ?

Now let us keep anti islamic or islamo phobia activity aside , because we cannot control it as outsiders to that thinking , we can only influence it or respond to to it.

Once again why we cannot just say it is wrong for anyone including our , citizens , yes Muslim citizens , to kill and we will do something about it. Explaining root cause and excuses also means we are trying to say it is ok to kill your innocent because our innocent get killed.

Fortunately such acts like in Paris or Sydney Seige is making liberal secular Muslims, where a poll stated 75% are not orthodox or fanatic to wake up gradually and say enough is enough, for too long these minority was the mouth piece, and out of these 25% a even smaller minority are prepared to use violence to promote or defend their way of life .

I know fundamentalists contributors will blog back there is no moderation in Islam ...one is either fully compliant or one is non Muslim. I also here the terrorists say the same . Do Bohras also not say the same ....there is no minimum criteria . But guess what we will create that criteria because we can .

Such events gives hope that while such atrocities will continue or escalate as thousands have been indoctrinated to throw out more outrageous chaos and millions will unfortunately cheer such acts , there is a kind of class of fanaticism...but the treat of existence and redicule will create a counter balance uprising of millions of moderates to put of the Flames out so we can try to carry on and enjoy the best of both civilisations . Their civilisation means their flavour of freedoms that we just have to tolerate as we can choose to ignore or not get provoked . No need to intrude on theirs . We are not here, including India , to create a caliphate or replace their laws with sharia , and when we want to enjoy some rituals we will do so without making it a burden or nuisance to them.

And about foreign politics the west is learning fast not rely on oil from the Middle east , however hard Saudi want that not to happen. But we will continue blaming 50 year old colonial issues instead of the modern day rise of nationalistic Muslim brotherhood that indoctrinates hate through the government of social services . It's like blaming British Governor General of 1940s for the 2014 killing of high school kids by talibans in Pakistan .

It is the moderates fault to not stop that divisive ideology to propagate in our mosques and madrasas. It is the moderates fault to be too busy with real modern lifestyle issues and ignore the fanatics spending time churning conspiracy stories , sowing hate while our silence is imprtant otherwise we will distract us from our money farms.

[anajmi]

Ok so the point is if The west is responsible of political manipulation in the east , this act of terrorism wrapped in ideological outbursts is vindicated ? Game is now deuce or draw is that what the strategy is ?

Please do not put 2 and 2 together to come up with 5. As long as you keep pretending that none of it has anything to do with what has been done before or going on even now, then I am afraid we are going to be at an impasse. Things aren't going to get better and no matter how much you apologize on behalf of the terrorists, they are going to keep killing.

By the way, there is a difference between a moderate and a cowering apologist. Choose wisely which one you want to be!!

I will let you apologize on my behalf as well. Thanks in advance.

[anajmi]

I think the way to better the current situation is for the west, including the USA, "Great" Britain, France and other past colonial powers to apologize for the crimes they have committed on Muslim lands and everywhere else against muslims, pay compensation for the dead and the displaced and accept responsibility for their crimes instead of hiding behind moderate-always-in-the-apologizing-mood muslims. We have already seen the moderately always apologizing muslims haven't been able to achieve anything. It is now time for the other side to apologize.

[Ozdundee]

And what do you think, after apologies and compensation the hatred will stop

Our doctrine will suppress the hate for Nasara and Majoos? And this waiting for Dajal

If 1000 years have not been able to create peace between the warring factions of Rome, Constantinople and Babylon one thinks 21st century will be that miracle year.

You may think an apology is enough there is underlying ideological war that will keep in recycling into new agendas . We are a few centuries behind.

The difference is secular thinkers in Judaism and Cristianity are no longer as keen on world conquer as they become agnostic and less spiritual

Sure I will apologize for you too but In the sease to give your types more time as we patch things up and try that they don't occur again and again and again

[qutub_mamajiwala]

This is exactly what I had said in an earlier post on this very thread.

There is a limit to everything. Figure out what offends people and try not to cross that limit. The limit of Muslim tolerance is known to every one. Don't cross those limits.

so by this logic PK should be banned. right?
coz it offends some people.
just coz they are not taking guns and going on a shooting spree .
what do u say?

[qutub_mamajiwala]

my tolerance level has come to nil with all salafi ideologists and yazidi lover.
there is limit to everything.
how about i getting a gun and killing all the likes of it.
then shia would issue same statement
"There is a limit to everything. Figure out what offends people and try not to cross that limit. The limit of Muslim tolerance is known to every one. Don't cross those limits."
good riddance

[SBM]

Subject: Fw: Avenging the Prophet Who Banned Revenges
To: Counter Current <countercurrent@live.co.uk>


THE BLOG

Avenging the Prophet Who Banned Revenges

Abdul Malik Mujahid
Posted: 01/09/15 03:12 PM ET Updated: 01/09/15 03:59 PM ET

"We have avenged the Prophet Mohammad", the gunmen reportedly shouted after killing 12 at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, Wednesday. The publication is known for lampooning the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

Well, the Prophet banned revenge as he built his peace sanctuary in seventh-century Madinah, establishing instead the rule of law.

He never killed anyone. Only, after God's command to defend his peace sanctuary, under attack by the pagans of Makkah, did he pick up arms. These defensive battles lasted a total of six days in his life and the number of dead from both sides was less than 300.

Peace was his goal, which he achieved by developing alliances between Madinah's Pagans, Jews, and Christians.

Violent extremists who accuse others of disrespect, then consider this a license to kill have nothing to do with the Islam taught by the Prophet they claim to be avenging. They have nothing to do with the message of forgiveness and mercy which Allah revealed to the Prophet; nothing to do with the law and order the Prophet established and upheld, which led to him being considered one of the world's greatest lawgivers by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Muslim love for Prophet Muhammad is unquestionable. God's peace and blessings be upon him. It does hurt us when people are abusive towards the Prophet.

It is, however, the ignorant, who do not know the loving path of mercy and forgiveness taught by the Prophet; they are turning into violent extremists and committing crimes in his name.

This is not love. This is hate.

The Prophet would be horrified at what is being done in his name to avenge disrespect to his honor.

The pagans of Makkah tortured the Prophet and his followers. He did not retaliate. He preferred to move away, first encouraging migration to Abyssinia, which was ruled by what he described as a "just king", who was a Christian, Najashi or Negus.

When some tribes agreed, he established the peace sanctuary in Madinah via constitution and consensus. He built a society that promoted inclusiveness, freedom, rule of law, and peace.

Respect for other faiths was a key element of Madinah society. Muslims are required to believe in all the revealed books, as well as all His Prophets and Messengers. We are also ordered to never insult the cherished beliefs of others, for humor or in retaliatory anger. This is why even today, throughout the Muslim world, you will not find newspapers being disrespectful of other religions. The terrorists are not the norm. They are the exception.

Muslims in France, America, and around the world are sick of terrorists perpetuating violence that is a violation of their faith in their name. We are against war and hate. We are also tired of the abuse of freedom of speech to spew hatred, mistrust, fear and misunderstanding.

War, terrorism and Islamophobia are a nexus, connected to each other and condemnable. They feed off of each other, perpetuating violence and fear. We Muslims condemn terrorism, war as well as hate. We must strive against them all.

[Ozdundee]

The issue is fundamentalists refer to the scriptures and not reason or apply the relevance to current situations

if the below verses are to be left as history so does many other rulings if they are not practicaland that is where Sharia needs to be modernised . time will tell us if we progressed or regressed , but then that is relative too. progress to a fundamentalist is recession to a secular

Recently some prominent talk-show hosts, Sean Hannity among them, have been referring to certain verses in the Quran that appear to call for Muslims to kill non-Muslims. These verses have too often been quoted with what appears to be a willful disregard for the context in which they occur, thus inflaming the emotions of listeners, perpetuating grave misunderstandings, and contributing to the potential for violence on all sides.

Though we may not be able to influence those who are hell-bent on hatred, an explanation is owed to all reasonable people who are interested in the truth of the matter and are not looking to create enemies. The vast majority of Muslims deserve to be seen as allies in a common quest for social justice and human dignity -- assuming, of course, that we as Americans have the same goals in mind.

A careful and unbiased study of these and other verses, in their proper context, will reveal that the exhortations to fight "idolaters" and "unbelievers" are specific in nature and are not general injunctions for the murder of all those who refuse to accept Islam as their way of life.

Among the most often cited verses is this one: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them, and blockade them, and watch for them at every lookout..." (Quran 9:5).

According to Islamic belief, the Quran was "revealed" to Muhammad in a process of dialog with the Divine, and some parts of the Quran refer to specific situations, while other parts offer universal spiritual principles. To understand this passage, we must take into account the historical circumstances at the time of its revelation.

The "idolaters" (Arabic: mushrikeen) were those Meccan "pagans" who had declared war against Muhammad and his community. The Meccan oligarchs fought against the Prophet's message from the very beginning. When they realized that the flow of converts to Islam was increasing, they resorted to violent oppression and torture of the Prophet and his followers. The Prophet himself survived several assassination attempts, and it became so dangerous for the Muslims in Mecca that Muhammad sent some of his companions who lacked tribal protection to take asylum in the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia. After 13 years of violence, he himself was compelled to take refuge in the city of Medina, and even then the Meccans did not relent in their hostilities. Eventually, various hostile Arab tribes joined in the fight against the Muslims, culminating in the Battle of the Trench, when 10,000 soldiers from many Arab tribes gathered to wipe out the Muslim community once and for all. As we know, the Muslims survived these challenges and eventually went on to establish a vast civilization.

At the time Verse 9:5 was revealed, Muhammad and his followers had begun to establish themselves securely. They had returned triumphantly to Mecca without violence, most Meccans themselves had become Muslims, and many of the surrounding pagan Arab tribes had also accepted Islam and sent delegations to the Prophet pledging their allegiance to him. Those that did not establish peace with the Muslims were the bitterest of enemies, and it was against these remaining hostile forces that the verse commands the Prophet to fight.

The verses that come immediately before 9:5 state, "Those with whom you have treaties are immune from attack." It further states, "Fulfill your treaties with them to the end of their term, for God loves the conscientious." Now, in its proper context, verse 9:5 can be properly understood.

This was a guidance to the Prophet at that specific time to fight those idolaters who, as 9:4 mentions, violated their treaty obligations and helped others fight against the Muslims. It is not a general command to attack all non-Muslims, and it has never signified this to the overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout history. Had it been so, then every year, after the "sacred months are past," (The "sacred months" are four months out of the year during which fighting is not allowed) history would have witnessed Muslims attacking every non-Muslim in sight. This yearly slaughter never occurred. Though the present verse is only one example, none of the Quranic verses that mention fighting justify aggression nor propose attacking anyone because of their religious beliefs. Nor were forced conversions recognized as valid under Islamic law.

The fundamental Quranic principle is that fighting is allowed only in self-defense, and it is only against those who actively fight against you. Indeed, Islam is a religion that seeks to maximize peace and reconciliation. Yet, Islam is not a pacifist religion; it does accept the premise that, from time to time and as a last resort, arms must be taken up in a just war.

If the enemy inclines toward peace, however, Muslims must follow suit: "But if they stop, God is most forgiving, most merciful" (2:192). Also read: "Now if they incline toward peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing" (8:61).

How then do we explain the early spread of Islam through military conquest? In the two decades following the death of Muhammad, Muslim armies challenged and largely overcame the world's two greatest powers, the Persian and Byzantine empires. Were these conquests truly justifiable according to the Quranic principles outlined above? It is a complex question and not one to be readily answered within the limits of a blog post such as this.

It deserves to be understood, however, that the Muslims fought imperial armies, not civilians, and were forbidden to harm non-combatants or destroy property. Islam guaranteed religious freedom for Christians, Jews, and other minority sects, even while they obliged these "protected" minorities to pay a small tax in exchange for being absolved from military service.

Now 14 centuries have passed, and it needs to be recognized that the Quran does not have an inherent, built-in agenda for aggression or domination. The vast majority of Muslims are content to live and let live. In fact, that is part of their religion. Relations with other religious communities are based on acceptance and encouragement to follow the best of your own religion:

To each community among you has been prescribed a Law and a way of life. If God had so willed He would have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He has given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which you differ. (5:48)
And Muslims believe that the God of Islam is not other than the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus and that the diversity of religions is according to Divine plan: "Truly those who keep the faith, and the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabaeans -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and performs virtuous deeds -- surely their reward is with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve." (2:62)

Perhaps these verses help to explain why in the city of Jerusalem, which has been ruled by Muslims for most of the last 13 centuries, the sacred sites of Jews and Christians have been protected, and those communities themselves have for the most part been able to live in peace together with Muslims. The assertion that Islam or the Quran inherently call for a "war on unbelievers" is sheer fallacy and fantasy. Peace be with you.

[anajmi]

"Killing is the solution" is not an Islamic teaching. It is infact a western philosophy. Who invented the gun? It was invented in the west. The nuclear weapon? Invented in the west. The most sophisticated missiles? Invented in the west. Who are the biggest suppliers of arms and ammunition in the world? The west. And France is one of them. Do you know what the NRA is? It is an association that defends the rights of people to bear arms and to kill those who they think are about to attack them. Britain, France, USA have all made killing an art form. Britain killed millions when it was a colonial power. America has killed millions in the last decade to "protect" its freedom and democracy. The Israelis have killed hundreds of thousands to steal land. I can go on and on, but I am sure some of you people are smart to figure out where I am going. If not, send me a pm.

So you see, "killing is the solution" is not an Islamic philosophy. It is a western philosophy. The threat of killing is what America uses to get its way. It doesn't tell Iran that if they stop their nuclear program they will get $100 Billion dollars of American business. No. It tells Iran that if it doesn't stop its nuclear program, it will employ sanctions so that Iranians do not have the basic needs and die of hunger. It killed millions in Iraq, millions in Afghanistan, millions in Syria etc etc etc.

Now, how much apologizing from the moderate-always-in-the-apologizing-mood muslim would it have taken for the french newspapers to stop disrespecting the prophet (saw)? No amount of apologizing would've worked. In fact most of the moderate muslims on this board would've ignored the disrespect of the prophet (saw). Imagine a child in the house of this "moderate" muslim. He is taught (if he is taught) that the prophet (saw) of Islam was a great man. He might ask, but the french say all kinds of shit about him. Why don't you speak up? What does the moderate say? Oh just ignore it son. We are moderate-apologizing muslims. We simply apologize and ignore.

But now, there is no newspaper in France that will publish cartoons that disrespect the prophet (saw). But hey, now the moderate apologizing muslim has even more reason to apologize.

The issue is fundamentalists refer to the scriptures and not reason or apply the relevance to current situations

Correct. And the only way to fix this problem is to not provide fuel to the fundamentalist. Do not give him the cause to kill you. The good thing is that the fundamentalist are too dumb and unlike the western civilized nations, they won't invent the cause themselves!!

[anajmi]

And what do you think, after apologies and compensation the hatred will stop

You won't know till you try now will you? We can always site the example of the peaceful conquest of Mecca where the enemies of Islam threw down their arms and accepted Islam. The prophet (saw) forgave them all. I know, I know, it is a self serving example!!

[fayyaaz]

Dealing with people who want Muslims to apologize for Charlie Hebdo.

Listen to the full exchange available at bottom of page.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/h ... ey0ZbPdoce

[anajmi]

One of the comments

No need to apologise for Iraq, Libya or anything really that I/we haven't personally done

Here is where this guy is mistaken. The American government acts in the name of the people. Infact, before they went into Iraq, the approval rating for starting the war was an overwhelming majority. So yet, he needs to apologize for Iraq and Libya and everything else that his government did in his name and with his approval. Besides, no one is going to go to him personally to apologize. His government will apologize in his name.

[Ozdundee]

France and Australia are linked by the past week's events. Both countries have been drawn into an asymmetrical global jihad, fed by notoriety and thus self-sustaining.

In Australia, the pressures are much less severe in the Muslim diaspora but there are self-evident problems.

Here is a statistic to ponder: Australian Muslims are statistically more likely to engage in jihad than to enlist in the Australian Defence Forces.

As at June 30, 2014, there were 57,036 permanent members in the ADF, plus 24,028 in the reserves. When I asked Defence Media how many ADF personnel were Muslim, I received this response:

"As at 26 October, 2014, 100 ADF members have declared they are of Islamic faith … The reporting of religious faith is voluntary and, as such, the data provided may not be a fully accurate representation."

With about 500,000 Muslims in Australia, representing 2.1 per cent of the population, there would be about 1200 Muslims in the ADF if they served on a per capita basis. Instead, the number is miniscule, about 0.2 per cent.

In contrast, 20 Australian Muslims have been killed in fighting in the Syrian civil war, an estimated 60 are still in the combat zone, another 20 have returned from Syria, and an estimated 100 more have provided support for jihad. These figures are from the federal government.

Another 20 Muslims are serving prison terms in Australia for serious terrorism offences or are facing terrorism charges. Two more Muslims, Man Haron Monis and Abdul Numan Haider, were killed during attacks in Australia in which they both invoked Islamic State.

Obviously, if 220 Australian Muslims are known to have engaged in jihad or supported jihad, it follows that 500,000 Muslims, or 99.95 per cent, have not.

Equally obvious, the diverse Muslim diaspora cannot be treated as a dangerous monolith, given that Muslims are the primary victims of oppression by Muslims and the overwhelming majority of Muslims either prefer the peaceful precepts of the Koran or are not highly religious.

But the calculus of terrorism relies on the leveraging of small numbers. It only took three jihadists to occupy 90,000 French police and military personnel, at enormous cost to the state, with enormous global publicity. That will have been duly noted by jihadists.

Australia's security agency has thus become extremely busy. Last financial year, ASIO conducted 159,000 security assessments. This helps explain why the Lindt Café killer was taken off the watch list.

Because of the leveraging of small numbers, the deaths of 22 Australian Muslims in the cause of jihad represents serious social capital. In per-capita terms, it the equivalent of more than 1000 Australian soldiers being killed in Afghanistan. This dwarfs the death toll of 43 Australian military personnel killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over the past decade, regarded as a heavy social cost.

And the problem is growing, not contracting. There was once a tradition among young Australians to travel overland from Singapore to London. That route has become a hell-hole:

Pakistan is dangerous. Afghanistan is a no-go area. Iran is an oppressive theocracy. Iraq is disintegrating. Syria is a disaster area. Lebanon is dangerous. In Turkey, for the first time, Australians travelling to Gallipoli will be going under a security alert.

All these Muslim countries used to be safe for transit. The intimidation being practised in the name of Islam by a small minority is a by-product of something much larger – the state-mandated conservatism that is systemic in the majority of Muslim societies. Most of them are dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies or failed states.

An investigation by Kings College London and the BBC World Service found that in a single month, November 2014, 5042 people were killed by jihadists in 664 separate attacks across 14 countries. That is one death every eight minutes.

It is ongoing. On Thursday, the Islamist group Boko Haram (which translates as "Western education is forbidden") is believed to have murdered up to 2000 people in Nigeria. These crimes, far greater in scale than those in Paris, received only a fraction of the attention.

In the 35 years since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, at least a million people have been killed in tens of thousands of jihad attacks, religious civil wars or wars between predominantly Muslim countries.

[Ozdundee]

In Under The Banner of Heaven, the very insightful Jon Krakauer, makes the point that the Morman religion, like Islam, has a strength which is also its weakness: it encourages individuals to make their own interpretation of the Holy Book, and to speak directly to God. This is good, but also a problem, because psychotics can then be given the green light to do whatever they want, under the premise that 'God' told me to'. Whereas a religion with a central Earthly representative has to listen to that one figurehead, so the 'lone wolf' syndrome is less likely to occur. But what if that figurehead asks you to participate in Holy War, or to believe in virgin births?
To cut to the chase. I asked a psychiatrist once, given the bizarre beliefs and practices of so many religions and so many psychotics, what is the difference between psychosis and religion?
Her answer was brief and to the point. 'When you harm yourself or others, it is psychosis, not religion.'

[fayyaaz]

http://stormcloudsgathering.com/charlie ... ored-video

[zinger]

The same people (French) who defend hurting Muslim sentiments under the Freedom of Speech disguise would not allow Muslim Women to wear Hijab in Public Universities, So the freedom is limited to chosen one, Height of Hypocrisy.

France is a democratic country and has the right to govern itself as it sees fit.
If certain people are not happy with the laws, they are free to leave, or to try and change them.

You trying to justify these barbaric murders by bringing up this hijab issue is disgusting.
Zinger liking your post shows that his IQ is also dropping due to being friends with you.

America has killed countless muslims and continues to do so.
Yet you still live in this country and finance their regime with your taxes.
Does that make you a hypocrite?

Sister CT, thank you for pointing out my dropping IQ. Hopefully, being friends with SBMbhai (which by the way im not. we are just 2 participants on an online forum. we have had many disagreements in public and private which are there for all to see)

I did like the post that SBMbhai made because i find it ironical that while on one hand they do not allow a Muslim woman to wear clothes that her religion dictates, are crying themselves hoarse over trouble that they invited for themselves.

if you will look closely, i have liked MF's post too, because they asked for trouble

[zinger]

Sorry, my post above should have read as "Sister CT, thank you for pointing out my dropping IQ. Hopefully, being friends with SBMbhai (which by the way im not. we are just 2 participants on an online forum. we have had many disagreements in public and private which are there for all to see) should not be the reason for the decline"

[qutub_mamajiwala]

Instead of repealing Section 295A of the IPC, which criminalises speech that offends the religious, India intends to further criminalise offence against religion

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/for-a ... 150112.htm


Get one thing straight: the murders in Paris were intended as an attack on the freedom of expression. The murderers explicitly acted in the name of their conception of Islam; they reportedly said, after the massacre, that the Prophet Mohammed had been “avenged”.

To add layers of nuance to these murders is self-deception. They were not about Arab cultural values, about France’s inequality, about Eurocentric racism, or about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. They were about blasphemy. They were about the imposition, through the fear of targeted killings, of a medieval speech code on a society that has voluntarily freed itself of such restraints.

Yes, Charlie Hebdo, the magazine that was attacked, skirted the borders of bad taste. Some of the cartoonists who died were in their 70s, and had been since the 1960s icons of the anti-clerical, semi-anarchist left; they spent their careers lampooning practices that they saw as oppressive. And, here’s the thing: for many on the left in Europe today, the practices of some of their Muslim co-citizens are seen indeed as oppressive.

You do not need to take a stance on whether this view is in itself racist or Eurocentric or whatever in order to justify their right to express it. Modern Europe has been built on the gradual retreat of oppressive traditions when faced with disbelief and mockery. To demand this cease now, as some liberals do, is to spit in the face of three centuries of history.

Let there be no doubt about it: those who choose to defy fundamentalist Islam today are brave people. Most of us would not dare. Yes, we will certainly mock other, defanged religions -- Reform Judaism, perhaps, or many strains of Christianity. (One of the murdered cartoonists himself described his aim as being to make European Islam “as banal as Catholicism”.) Yes, we would think twice about being disrespectful of the majority religion in these parts -- it may lead to mobs and legal trouble. But we will seriously fear even the slightest expression of disagreement with principles that fundamentalist Muslims hold in esteem. There are degrees to everything, and militant Islam has a doctoral degree in intimidation.

This means that what is claimed to be a double standard among Indian liberals -- you never talk about Islam as much, we are told -- is simply fear. It is ridiculous to angrily denounce people for not risking martyrdom. The kind of wishy-washy timid pragmatic middle-of-the-road un-fanatical compromise-loving individuals such as myself to whom Indian liberalism appeals are not known for seeking out martyrdom.

But the truth is that, in India, we have voluntarily restricted ourselves even further. Blasphemy against anyone carries far more risks than it should. Besides the fear of death, there is the fear of the mob, as I mentioned -- the fear that drove M F Husain to die in exile.

And there is the fear of legal action, on the basis of contemptible, illiberal and outdated laws, of the sort that sent Mumbai rationalist Sanal Edamaruku to exile in Finland, after legal threats from Roman Catholics.

Edamuruku had questioned a “miracle” being claimed by some Roman Catholics in Mumbai. A steady drip of water from the toe of a statue of Jesus in a suburban church was not in fact a miracle, he showed, but the consequence of an overflowing drain. For this, he was rewarded with criminal cases being registered against him in 3 police stations in Mumbai. The crucial statute, of course, is Section 295A of the penal code, which criminalises speech that offends the religious.

This is India’s own secular blasphemy law, one which should offend every liberal sensibility. It is used to drive men like Edamuruku into exile, while genuine hatemongers are, instead, elected to Parliament so that they can make speeches threatening “a heavy price” for those who “defame Hindutva” protected by parliamentary privilege.

The existence of these laws on the books means that in India, we would never react like the French did to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. We instead evaluate what people said. Did it give offence? From that it is but one step to point out: was the speech not criminal then? Yes, death is an extreme punishment, perhaps, but let’s not forget those killed were criminals anyway. Section 295A turns anti-blasphemy Islamic terrorists in India into justice vigilantes, “encounter” specialists. Just a shade darker than Superman. (The Man of Steel version.)

Shockingly, instead of repealing Section 295A, we intend to further criminalise offence against religion in this country. We are seriously considering, according to the ruling party, a national anti-conversion law. Why? To protect “forced” conversion. Note that, according to various legal judgments, “force” here does not mean what it does in plain English. It does not mean tying people up and making them say “I am Buddhist” three times. Saying people will go to an imaginary Hell if they don’t convert is also “force”; indeed, “insulting” the precepts of another religion is also “force”.

In other words, we are close to passing an additional statute that religious nutters can use to intimidate those who disagree with them. Just last fortnight, the Madhya Pradesh police arrested 10 Christians under the state’s anti-conversion law for “insulting Hinduism”. With the typical blind hypocrisy of the fanatical, those most supportive of free speech that attacks Islam are those most in favour of an anti-conversion law.

Yes, vehemently disagreeing with, and mocking, the cherished beliefs of others is not a pleasant act. It can mask bigotry. Even if not, it is usually bad manners. But you cannot legislate good manners. And frankly, if we are going to, I would prefer we start by trying to criminalise queue-breaking, which I am sure infuriates more Indians, and causes more public disorder, than blasphemy. But we won’t, because we have an exaggerated respect for religious “sentiment” that the French, in particular, have chosen to dump.

We in India have little in our history similar to French anti-clericalism, and we are the worse for it. The attack on Charlie Hebdo did not just kill cartoonists -- it also killed two policemen outside, one of them a Muslim. These two men gave their life for the highest achievement of the French Revolution, the right to insult god. They also are martyrs of liberalism.

Our state would not risk its men thus. Because the father of our revolution was not Voltaire but Mohandas Gandhi, as big a defender of illiberal religious obscurantism as any country has ever been saddled with. And his heir was Nehru, who personally intervened to end Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech -- over the wishes, as it happens, of the BJP’s ideological hero, Shyama Prasad Mookherjee. To this extent, their legacy must be rejected, and that of Mookherjee and B R Ambedkar -- whose brilliant Annihilation of Caste violates Section 295A on every single illuminating, polemical page -- should guide us instead.

Take all these illiberal laws off the books. Establish that giving offence through speech is not a reason for the state to frown on you. Only after that can we hope that the state will protect you if you do give offence. We in this country who offend should have the popular support Charlie Hebdoreceived -- and the state support Salman Rushdie received. Only after that will ordinary Indians start to speak freely about religion. And only after that, once we build an India with more blasphemers, can we hope to rise above the swamp of irrationality in which we wallow.