Do I think they were terrorists? Yes, they attacked the public. Their actions were more than the situation called for. The cartoonist was at fault though for his degradation of Islamic people (Muslims? Not really sure). Simply put, both parties were wrong however one party went too far. Example: some kid insulted another, next day other kid kills the other kid who insulted him. Now if they instead did some non violent action as retribution, then I may have been okay with it.
Terrorists
- Thread starter China IL
- Start date
- Status
Frankly, the Qu'ran says explicitly that his actions render him non-muslim.
9:23 O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.
9:24 Say, [O Muhammad], "If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people."
There are several other sections where the sentiment is similar.
9:38 O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah , you adhere heavily to the earth? Are you satisfied with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But what is the enjoyment of worldly life compared to the Hereafter except a [very] little.
9:38 If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and will replace you with another people, and you will not harm Him at all. And Allah is over all things competent.
Basically - a devout Muslim believes that man is going to hell as he aided the non-believers over/against the believers.
9:55 So let not their wealth or their children impress you. Allah only intends to punish them through them in worldly life and that their souls should depart [at death] while they are disbelievers.
56 And they swear by Allah that they are from among you while they are not from among you; but they are a people who are afraid.
57 If they could find a refuge or some caves or any place to enter [and hide], they would turn to it while they run heedlessly.
Here, Muhammad (Allah if you're a Muslim) is condemning those who did not follow him into battle or who attempted to 'buy' their way out of battle. This section of the Qu'ran basically says: "Allah commands you to fight with me or go to hell - but if you don't fight with me, it will not bring me failure."
Surat 9 is the last complete revelation claimed within the Qu'ran and therefor contains the most authority when conflicts appear between verses in the Qu'ran.
Then, by all means, make it so that something is known.
The problem most non-evil people have with Islam is that it is essentially pure evil. Granted - there are those who have no exposure to a lifestyle that isn't ruled by evil - so the have simply no knowledge that the world doesn't have to be that way.
Anyway - non-evil people within western islamic societies generally have to ignore the Qu'ran and Muhammad in order to avoid dealing with the reality of their religion.
There are a few who take up the mantle of attempting to reconcile Islam - but they run into a very severe problem:
The Qu'ran references itself and claims perfection - that it is the unaltered revelation of Allah from Muhammad.
This makes certain sections such as this:
4:34 Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
Hard to swallow within a western perspective.
If it is the unaltered revelation of Allah - then you damned well better do it if you believe in Allah.
The Qu'ran is not structured like the Bible. It does not have multiple authors and multiple stories told through different ages and under varying circumstances. It is a record of the revelations Muhammad claimed to receive from Allah. Each ayah is, thus, equivalent to one of the Ten Commandments given to Moses (to parallel Judeo-Christian scriptural standards).
The argument could be made that this would be similar to the revelations made to a prophet like Ezekiel - but that's not really accurate as there were prophets after Ezekiel; Paul's words, even after Christ, have a massive amount of scriptural weight when it comes to Christian views and interpretations.
Islam has no subsequent prophets. Muhammad was it. When Allah was done revealing things to humanity, Muhammad was supposed to be taken into paradise.
Why?
The Qu'ran explains in several locations that the Jews and Christians had perverted the scriptures and, thus, Allah sent Muhammad to straighten things up. In a nutshell.
Thus, the entire -point- of Islam is that the Qu'ran is a sort of 'divine intervention' to ensure that humans have a correct and proper set of instructions.
So, when people raised within a western environment see: "strike her" in a set of commands regarding how a husband is to handle a disobedient wife - there is a crisis of faith. The West has been raised on the concept of equal male and female roles and has spent a lot of effort attempting to reduce and end abuse.
Clearly, Muhammad must have meant something else, right? Like a love-tap, or something?
Except we get more insight from the Hadith:
Sahih Al-Bukhari 72:715
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"
To re-phrase what is happening:
A man, Rifa, divorced his wife (We'll call her Nell), Nell. Abdur marries Nell. One evening, Nell comes to Aisha (Muhammad's wife) while wearing a green veil and shows her a bruise that is claimed to have been as green as the veil. Aisha is upset and remarks to Muhammad that no women suffer so much as those of Muhammad's followers.
Muhammad probably groaned before going to figure out what the hell was going on. Nell claimed that Abdur was impotent and couldn't satisfy her, and so he was as useful as the hem of her skirt (useless). Abdur says she's just being pissy and wants to go back to Rifa. Muhammad tells Nell that if she wishes to go back to Rifa - she may not divorce Abdur until he (abdur) has nailed her, as it would be unlawful otherwise. Muhammad notices two boys with Abdur's other wife and says: "Well, you must be potent, those boys resemble you as a crow resembles a crow."
So we're not left with an overall good impression of Muhammad's domestics from the western sphere of influence. The notion that a disobedient woman could be beaten was just kind of the way things went. The notion that a wife can only divorce after having intercourse is just ridiculous from a western point of view.
Herein comes the conflict. To be Muslim is to submit to the commands of Allah who has given revelation to Muhammad and safeguarded that revelation so that people may be able to follow the right path. For a westerner, this means accepting commands as being "right" that our society has long held as wrong - even evil.
There are three generalized responses to this:
Submission - These individuals hold that Allah's commands are higher than man's desires and whims. Allah has said it is correct and therefor it is correct. End of story. These generally make up your "fundamentalists." The larger a muslim population gets and the more isolated it becomes from the larger society it is part of, the easier it is for people within that environment to become fundamentalists.
Denial - These individuals see a few things that don't fit with what they believe and cease looking further into the scripture. They go through the motions of Islam and believe that they can piggy-back their good intentions and desires on top of Islam. After all, there are verses that say: "those who do good" - and if they are doing good, then that's what matters, right?
The fact that the Qu'ran exists to tell Muslims what constitutes "good" is ignored in this line of reasoning.
Schism - This is a more complicated group, but these people generally try to 'reform' Islam by taking one of two basic viewpoints; that much of the Qu'ran has limited historical context, or that the Qu'ran is intended to be allegory and metaphor.
The problem with each of these is largely the same problem as attempting to say one is Muslim while believing the Qu'ran is incorrect - it is simply a more indirect way of saying that Muhammad was wrong.
The idea that the Qu'ran must be understood within a historical context is popular since most people (including most western Muslims) do not know the historical context of the Qu'ran. When one encounters a particularly difficult-to-swallow verse (and there are plenty of them) - one simply accepts that there is some kind of perfectly valid reason for that verse to exist and that perfectly valid reason is also why we shouldn't trouble ourselves with following it.
But... Why, then, include it within the timeless revelations of Allah?
If the relevance has come and gone, then what remains of the book that is supposed to be timeless and to have been in heaven with Allah since the universe began? Why would such time-sensitive information be in such a book?
Not that the historical context helps much. In many cases, we see instances where Muhammad signs a treaty with one tribe only to attack another tribe before the treaty with them expires. We see him settle disputes about whether or not it is proper to climax inside of captured women ("it is better to not interrupt coitus" - per Muhammad), and tell his followers that they will receive twice as many women in paradise if they die fighting to protect him that day (when he would be captured and more than likely killed).
Saying that the Qu'ran is all allegory and metaphor (it's just one big book of Revelations, after all...) completely neglects the historical context of each chapter that cements the commands as being very real.
If they were to be real, then - but metaphorical, today?
Generally speaking - this is why most western Muslims fall into the Denial category. Many who enter into the Schism response ultimately end up leaving Islam or becoming non-practicing in a non-muslim country (not really taking up the mantle of any other religion but claiming to be Muslim because they can't really claim to know much about anything else).
Most Mid-East and Culturally isolated Muslims become Submissive and fundamentalist.
Which is why everyone knows a "real Muslim" who "doesn't believe those things" - yet we see Islamic fundamentalists operating out of France, Germany, and Britain where there were hardly any Muslims 70 years ago. It's why those areas start to see Sharia Courts spring up that operate according to Sharia Law rather than the laws of the nation they are in - where you are arrested and penalized based on the laws of Islam rather than the laws of Britain, Germany, or France (respectively).
Despite the fact that everyone has the friend who is a 'real muslim' - the 'real muslims' end up being displaced by the 'radicals' not too long after a few mosques are built.
We can argue scripture and what is 'true' and what is 'not true' about the Qu'ran all day. The fact of the matter is that the historical pattern of Islamic expansion is well established. Anyone who has studied the history of Islam warned that this type of thing would begin happening. They warned Britain, France, and Germany that this was going to become their future as Islam gained a greater hold on the population.
Why?
Because it's what has happened to every nation that opened their doors to Islam in the past. It ends with either the Muslims being forcibly expelled by violence or the Muslims forcibly subjecting non-muslims with violence. The exceptions are few and far between.
I'm closing this. I read the entire thread and, as usual, I'm conflicted between crying and laughing about how horribly some people are informed by serious matters like this and are by no means qualified to participate in the discussions about the topic, but somehow are under the illusion they are and even think they are an authority on the matter.
The attack on Charlie Hebdo and the hostages that followed it were beyond all reasonable doubt terrorist attacks. There is no discussion there, there is no debate there, it's a hardcore truth and fact. That's the reality of the situation. Anyone who denies or disagrees with that is in complete denial and should keep his/her mouth shut for his/her own good. If they just wanted to punish Charlie Hebdo, if they just wanted to simply murder them as some people say in this thread, why the hell didn't they just assassinate them quietly by picking them off one by one? People die under mysterious circumstances all the time. It shouldn't be that hard for them to just kill the cartoonists and make it look like a failed robbery or make it appear someone else did it. Charlie Hebdo had no shortage of enemies. If their point was simply to punish them for their deeds, they could have done it in a far more efficient way without hurting innocent people and above all without discrediting -again- the Muslim faith. This is what Israel did with escaped Nazi's.
But no that's not what they did. In total 20 people died. Excluding the 3 terrorists themselves who died dog's deaths, 17 people died of which many were innocent people who had nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo whatsoever, including a cop that was a Muslim himself. So how the hell is this just plain murder and a punishment for Charlie Hebdo? Are some of you people really so extremely naive to think that if CH had apologized or had never made those cartoons, nothing would have happened? Oh please get a reality check. If it wasn't CH, they would have used another target. Just living in Europe or America alone is enough reason for them to pull stuff like this. That CH was this time around the victim because they made cartoons, was just a feeble excuse to attack them specifically. They would have attacked someone or something either way. Why? Because the point of this attacks is to sow fear. Terror literally means fear in Latin. I mean France has a population of over 60 million and they killed 17 of them. Statistically that's peanuts, almost a laughable joke. But the result is that France has been almost burning for 3 days. Why? Because they kill innocent people randomly, they show that they have no morals, that they have no hesitation whatsoever to commit gruesome, inhumane acts. That's why this is a terrorist attack. Charlie Hebdo was nothing more than a superficial layer, a frame work, a box that contained what truly was the point: they wanted to hurt their enemies and their enemies are everyone who do not bow to their tyrannical views. They could easily have used another box. They would have never gotten this result if they silently assassinated the cartoonists. That would have lacked all impact. Isreal aimed specifically at individual nazi's, they wanted to make them pay for the deeds they personally were responsible for. This is not what they wanted, they wanted to make all their enemies bleed, this was on the level of a society and not and individual, Charlie Hebdo simply was the one who literally had to take the bullet.
And for crying out loud these attacks were even claimed by notorious terrorist organizations whose national sports are raping, murdering and suicide-bombing. How is it possible that some of you are so out of the loop to even deny that.
And FYI terrorism is linked with Islam because these days nut-job Muslim extremists are responsible for the most severe terrorist attacks, hence the two are strongly tied with each other. As a result it's inevitable that some people will automatically blame Islam as a whole, but there are also many who don't. So people who ignore the latter, but emphasize the first, are no better than those same people. Also most of you people don't seem to be aware that not even a few decades ago terrorism was associated with Europe where organizations like the ETA and RAF were also committing terrorist attacks on European soil. There was simply a 'shift', just like how in the 19th century you had a large group of anarchists who committed terrorist-like attacks. At some point the connection between Islam and terrorism will shift likewise.
Lastly situations like these are 'grey zones', there are no clear boundaries. However many people in this thread are thinking in black and white, or it's one, or it's the other and imagine boundaries where there are none. As long as you do not realize this, spare yourself and other people the trouble and do not get involved with matters like this as you're doomed to fail. It will only make matters worse as your perceptions are so screwed up from the get-go going into discussions is pointless.
The attack on Charlie Hebdo and the hostages that followed it were beyond all reasonable doubt terrorist attacks. There is no discussion there, there is no debate there, it's a hardcore truth and fact. That's the reality of the situation. Anyone who denies or disagrees with that is in complete denial and should keep his/her mouth shut for his/her own good. If they just wanted to punish Charlie Hebdo, if they just wanted to simply murder them as some people say in this thread, why the hell didn't they just assassinate them quietly by picking them off one by one? People die under mysterious circumstances all the time. It shouldn't be that hard for them to just kill the cartoonists and make it look like a failed robbery or make it appear someone else did it. Charlie Hebdo had no shortage of enemies. If their point was simply to punish them for their deeds, they could have done it in a far more efficient way without hurting innocent people and above all without discrediting -again- the Muslim faith. This is what Israel did with escaped Nazi's.
But no that's not what they did. In total 20 people died. Excluding the 3 terrorists themselves who died dog's deaths, 17 people died of which many were innocent people who had nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo whatsoever, including a cop that was a Muslim himself. So how the hell is this just plain murder and a punishment for Charlie Hebdo? Are some of you people really so extremely naive to think that if CH had apologized or had never made those cartoons, nothing would have happened? Oh please get a reality check. If it wasn't CH, they would have used another target. Just living in Europe or America alone is enough reason for them to pull stuff like this. That CH was this time around the victim because they made cartoons, was just a feeble excuse to attack them specifically. They would have attacked someone or something either way. Why? Because the point of this attacks is to sow fear. Terror literally means fear in Latin. I mean France has a population of over 60 million and they killed 17 of them. Statistically that's peanuts, almost a laughable joke. But the result is that France has been almost burning for 3 days. Why? Because they kill innocent people randomly, they show that they have no morals, that they have no hesitation whatsoever to commit gruesome, inhumane acts. That's why this is a terrorist attack. Charlie Hebdo was nothing more than a superficial layer, a frame work, a box that contained what truly was the point: they wanted to hurt their enemies and their enemies are everyone who do not bow to their tyrannical views. They could easily have used another box. They would have never gotten this result if they silently assassinated the cartoonists. That would have lacked all impact. Isreal aimed specifically at individual nazi's, they wanted to make them pay for the deeds they personally were responsible for. This is not what they wanted, they wanted to make all their enemies bleed, this was on the level of a society and not and individual, Charlie Hebdo simply was the one who literally had to take the bullet.
And for crying out loud these attacks were even claimed by notorious terrorist organizations whose national sports are raping, murdering and suicide-bombing. How is it possible that some of you are so out of the loop to even deny that.
And FYI terrorism is linked with Islam because these days nut-job Muslim extremists are responsible for the most severe terrorist attacks, hence the two are strongly tied with each other. As a result it's inevitable that some people will automatically blame Islam as a whole, but there are also many who don't. So people who ignore the latter, but emphasize the first, are no better than those same people. Also most of you people don't seem to be aware that not even a few decades ago terrorism was associated with Europe where organizations like the ETA and RAF were also committing terrorist attacks on European soil. There was simply a 'shift', just like how in the 19th century you had a large group of anarchists who committed terrorist-like attacks. At some point the connection between Islam and terrorism will shift likewise.
Lastly situations like these are 'grey zones', there are no clear boundaries. However many people in this thread are thinking in black and white, or it's one, or it's the other and imagine boundaries where there are none. As long as you do not realize this, spare yourself and other people the trouble and do not get involved with matters like this as you're doomed to fail. It will only make matters worse as your perceptions are so screwed up from the get-go going into discussions is pointless.
- Status