BBC.com: Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

[Predicto]

im not gonna fight you, but your math is off

 

 

Really?

 

The way I see it, 3000 people out of 19 million is mathematically equivalent to 300 people out of 1.9 million, or 30 out of 190,000, or 3 out of 19,000.

 

3 out of 19,000 is not 1.6 percent.   It is one hundredth of that.

[FrFan]

Breaking news from Belgium: Verviers  3 dead in a police operation against suspected terrorists

 

Why he has as many Belgian jihadists in Syria?

"Belgium, plagued by religious radicalism, is proportionally the largest jihadist provider in Europe"

[PeterMP]

Can we talk about something that appears to be much more prevalent and something that I think most of us would still agree is extremists behavior?

 

What about the Pew poll related to apostasy discussed earlier in this thread?

 

Does it bother anybody that there appear to be a large numbers of Muslims that think the death penalty for apostasy is a good thing?

 

That in a country like Egypt that we generally consider our ally, the number is well over 50%.

 

And does anybody really not believe that the points that Corcaigh is making, while much less common, isn't tied to things like thinking and teaching that the death penalty is acceptable punishment for apostasy?

 

Anybody?

 

**EDIT**

And I'll point out that the death penalty for apostasy arose in Islam pretty early (maybe with Muhomad (the question was put to SHF earlier, and I didn't see a response from him)) and has been practiced essentially through out history in (some) heavily Muslim areas as near as I can tell (e.g .parts of the Middle East).

 

As compared with some of the world's other major religions, where penalties for apostasy have been pretty much limited to times where the religion has been integrated into the political system, which has not always been the case for other religions.

 

For example, in the Gospels, Paul's letters, and Acts of the Apostles and other early Christian Church documents, there is no apparent penalty for apostasy other than eviction from the community.

 

It isn't until Christianity starts to get coopted by the Romans and you have the Holy Roman Empire and the Monarchs appealing to divine rights do you see penalties for apostasy in Christianity.

 

And once those ideas died so did the penalty for apostasy in the very vast majority of cases (I'm sure somebody out there can find somebody that claims to be Christian saying that Christian apostates should be killed, but is very very rare).

 

Does anybody want to defend the number of Muslims that appear to believe that the death penalty for apostasy is a good thing based on the Pew poll?

 

Does anybody think those types of ideas aren't connected to the points that Corcaigh was making?

 

Anybody?

[FrFan]

The anti-Charlie Hebdo attack more than 20,000 French sites

"Following the tragic events of last week, Anonymous decided Friday, January 9, attacking hundreds of jihadist websites including some collateral damage since some members attacked the website of Halal restaurants that have obviously nothing to do with the terrorist movement....."

 

Can we talk about something that appears to be much more prevalent and something that I think most of us would still agree is extremists behavior?

 

Warning, long reading ahead

 

Interview with a former Muslim who apostatized

"[Olaf] Really? It can not be a Muslim and secular?

[KS, the Insoumis] You make me smile, Olaf, it can not snow in the desert, 45º anyway!

[Olaf] In the end, what is the goal of Islam?

[KS, the Insoumis] For Muslims, happiness after death when they won paradise. Forward is to conquer the world and Islamize all the inhabitants of the earth as ordered Muhammad: "I will fight men until they say there is no god but Allah.""

 

On his motivation :

"I said above that I have never had a spirituality, I lived in doubt and fear, until I did not and got into the responses of research the questions that had me worry since my childhood. I could not sleep, I was afraid always afraid. Gradually, I took my courage in 10 hands and threw myself headlong immersed myself in books, "Islamic sources," articles on sites critical of Islam.

I discovered the inconsistency of the Koran and its contradictions:

- Linguistic errors, history and science;
- The policy of carrot and stick;
- Thousands of contradictory hadiths between genuine, average and low by many rapporteurs in the history of Islam;
- The injustice of Allah to the discrimination of women and the disabled, and worthlessness;
- The myth of perfection of Muhammad.

I discovered a lot of lies and a lot of things that imams prefer to hide to ground. Among them: Muhammad's marriage to Aisha when she was only 9 years old, he married his own daughter in law, he ordered the assassinations, the raids he organized, etc."

[codeorama]

Anyone read the Pope's comments? He makes some good points. For the record, I am anti-organized religion in general, and I agree in the freedom of speech/expression, however, the Pope's comments make perfect sense.  It is wrong to make fun of other people's faith.

 

I would love to make fun of other people's faith, but choose not to because its just mean.

 

I'm not saying the attack was justified, just that people need to really rethink what they are doing.

[JoeWolf990]

Really?

 

The way I see it, 3000 people out of 19 million is mathematically equivalent to 300 people out of 1.9 million, or 30 out of 190,000, or 3 out of 19,000.

 

3 out of 19,000 is not 1.6 percent.   It is one hundredth of that.

ffs, ur right! :faceintopalm:

Anyone read the Pope's comments? He makes some good points. For the record, I am anti-organized religion in general, and I agree in the freedom of speech/expression, however, the Pope's comments make perfect sense.  It is wrong to make fun of other people's faith.

 

I would love to make fun of other people's faith, but choose not to because its just mean.

 

I'm not saying the attack was justified, just that people need to really rethink what they are doing.

for me, everyone faith is fair game.

The depictions in Charlie Hebdo crossed the line of just comedy and into something crass and prejudiced.

And South Park is absolutely not the equivalent of Charlie Hebdo, like someone said earlier in this thread. South Park makes astute commentary while Hebdo was going for shocking laughs. Seeing a picture of Mohammad with his naked butt in the air ready to get penetrated is not funny and is not making any social commentary.

[FrFan]

Anyone read the Pope's comments? He makes some good points. For the record, I am anti-organized religion in general, and I agree in the freedom of speech/expression, however, the Pope's comments make perfect sense.  It is wrong to make fun of other people's faith.

 

I would love to make fun of other people's faith, but choose not to because its just mean.

 

I'm not saying the attack was justified, just that people need to really rethink what they are doing.

Can we laugh about anything ? That's a long debatable question.

In some countries the medias follow a politicaly correct guideline, in others such as France (secularism), there is no politicaly correct guideline in the medias. No one is right neither wrong, just different cultures. Some people think we can laugh about anything, some don't.

[endzone_dave]

Can we laugh about anything ? That's a long debatable question.

In some countries the medias follow a politicaly correct guideline, in others such as France (secularism), there is no politicaly correct guideline in the medias. No one is right neither wrong, just different cultures. Some people think we can laugh about anything, some don't.

 

I bet there are things that would offend a French person.

[FrFan]

I bet there are things that would offend a French person.

Yes, and not only a French person. Today I was offended by a lousy french journalist :

 

Awkward: Sky News refuses to show new Charlie Hebdo cover during live interview

by CBSTV Videos 0:59 mins

During an interview with former Charlie Hebdo contributor Caroline Fourest on Sky News, the news network stopped her from displaying the magazine’s controversial new cover. CBSN’s Gigi Stone and Anne Marie Green report on the awkward exchange.

 

I think she disrespected England, english medias follow the politicaly correct guideline and that's their prerogative and we must respect that. This stupid journalist is an attention seeker most of us don't like her, see the readers comments here

For the record Charlie Hebdo was sued twice by muslim associations they were overruled twice.

[Predicto]

I still don't see what is offensive about NOT showing something that you know is going to offend people.

 

 

I absolutely defend the right to free speech, and if a news organization chooses to show the cover, I will defend that choice and there should be no repercussions  ----

 

but that is not the same saying that the news organization has a POSITIVE DUTY to show the cover, knowing it will offend some people, just to make a point.  

 

"Here, I'm going to draw a childish cartoon showing Mohammed having sex with a donkey, and if you don't broadcast it, you are cowards and hate freedom!"   What kind of logic is that?   Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be tactful as well as offensive.

[FrFan]

I was talking about respect when you are in a foreign country. She knew that what she was going to do was not allowed, she did it anyways. She could just have made her point through the regular interview process or just showed I am Charlie sign, that was my point.

[TimmySmith]

And South Park is absolutely not the equivalent of Charlie Hebdo, like someone said earlier in this thread. South Park makes astute commentary while Hebdo was going for shocking laughs. Seeing a picture of Mohammad with his naked butt in the air ready to get penetrated is not funny and is not making any social commentary.

Free speech is free speech.  The last few posts are getting very close to "they got what was coming".

[mcsluggo]

further evidence that it is fundamentalism that is the problem.   Fundy jackholes suck, be they Muslim, Hindi, Christian, Athiest, or Jewish.....

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/israeli-newspaper-hamevaser-merkel-women-charlie-hebdo-rally?CMP=share_btn_fb

 

 

 

Israeli newspaper edits out Angela Merkel from front page on Paris march

Associated Press in Jerusalem

 

 

Wednesday 14 January 2015 12.44 EST

 

 

<cut from the text>...... Binyamin Lipkin, editor of Hamevaser, said the newspaper is a family publication that must be suitable for all audiences, including young children.

“The eight-year-old can’t see what I don’t want him to see,” he told Israel’s Channel 10 television station. “True, a picture of Angela Merkel should not ruin the child, but if I draw a line, I have to put it there from the bottom all the way to the top.”

He also said he did not want to tarnish the memories of the people killed in the attacks.

“Including a picture of a woman into something so sacred, as far as we are concerned, it can desecrate the memory of the martyrs and not the other way around,” he said.

 

<click on the link for more>

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Free speech is free speech.  The last few posts are getting very close to "they got what was coming".

 

uhm.. no they don't.

[twa]

Can we talk about something that appears to be much more prevalent and something that I think most of us would still agree is extremists behavior?

 

 

Killing in the name of your religion certainly seems that way.

[TimmySmith]

Killing in the name of your religion certainly seems that way.

Unfortunately when it's a prevailing opinion, it's not extreme.  Davis Koresh and Osama Bin Laden are "extreme" in our opinion.  Not so much in Islamic society.

[mcsluggo]

Can we talk about something that appears to be much more prevalent and something that I think most of us would still agree is extremists behavior?

 

What about the Pew poll related to apostasy discussed earlier in this thread?

 

Does it bother anybody that there appear to be a large numbers of Muslims that think the death penalty for apostasy is a good thing?

 

That in a country like Egypt that we generally consider our ally, the number is well over 50%.

 

And does anybody really not believe that the points that Corcaigh is making, while much less common, isn't tied to things like thinking and teaching that the death penalty is acceptable punishment for apostasy?

 

Anybody?

 

**EDIT**

And I'll point out that the death penalty for apostasy arose in Islam pretty early (maybe with Muhomad (the question was put to SHF earlier, and I didn't see a response from him)) and has been practiced essentially through out history in (some) heavily Muslim areas as near as I can tell (e.g .parts of the Middle East).

 

As compared with some of the world's other major religions, where penalties for apostasy have been pretty much limited to times where the religion has been integrated into the political system, which has not always been the case for other religions.

 

For example, in the Gospels, Paul's letters, and Acts of the Apostles and other early Christian Church documents, there is no apparent penalty for apostasy other than eviction from the community.

 

It isn't until Christianity starts to get coopted by the Romans and you have the Holy Roman Empire and the Monarchs appealing to divine rights do you see penalties for apostasy in Christianity.

 

And once those ideas died so did the penalty for apostasy in the very vast majority of cases (I'm sure somebody out there can find somebody that claims to be Christian saying that Christian apostates should be killed, but is very very rare).

 

Does anybody want to defend the number of Muslims that appear to believe that the death penalty for apostasy is a good thing based on the Pew poll?

 

Does anybody think those types of ideas aren't connected to the points that Corcaigh was making?

 

Anybody?

 

 

i think that is alarming...and troubling... and appalling.....    But i can also see the relatively smaller steps that get you to that "vote"  (in the abstract)

 

if you live in one of those countries, and you believe that the country's laws should be based on religious laws...  are pro death penalty... i don't think it is that surprising that where you draw the line on what could possibly get the death penalty could have apostasy inside that circle.

 

 

hell, in the tailgate a non-insignificant minority regularly state that they think there should be a death penalty for cruelty to dogs.  I have to assume that they are at least semi-serious 

 

 

 

personally, I am anti death penalty AND pro secularism... so it would be a huge leap to get me to that position.  But i can see where it is a relatively small leap to get you to that point if you believe in both of those.... and yes that alarms me.   

[twa]

further evidence that it is fundamentalism that is the problem.   Fundy jackholes suck, be they Muslim, Hindi, Christian, Athiest, or Jewish.....

 

 

censorship in a ultra orthodox paper is a real problem?

 

or was it the martyr bit?

[jpyaks3]

Can we talk about something that appears to be much more prevalent and something that I think most of us would still agree is extremists behavior?

 

What about the Pew poll related to apostasy discussed earlier in this thread?

 

Does it bother anybody that there appear to be a large numbers of Muslims that think the death penalty for apostasy is a good thing?

 

That in a country like Egypt that we generally consider our ally, the number is well over 50%.

 

And does anybody really not believe that the points that Corcaigh is making, while much less common, isn't tied to things like thinking and teaching that the death penalty is acceptable punishment for apostasy?

 

Anybody?

 

**EDIT**

And I'll point out that the death penalty for apostasy arose in Islam pretty early (maybe with Muhomad (the question was put to SHF earlier, and I didn't see a response from him)) and has been practiced essentially through out history in (some) heavily Muslim areas as near as I can tell (e.g .parts of the Middle East).

 

As compared with some of the world's other major religions, where penalties for apostasy have been pretty much limited to times where the religion has been integrated into the political system, which has not always been the case for other religions.

 

For example, in the Gospels, Paul's letters, and Acts of the Apostles and other early Christian Church documents, there is no apparent penalty for apostasy other than eviction from the community.

 

It isn't until Christianity starts to get coopted by the Romans and you have the Holy Roman Empire and the Monarchs appealing to divine rights do you see penalties for apostasy in Christianity.

 

And once those ideas died so did the penalty for apostasy in the very vast majority of cases (I'm sure somebody out there can find somebody that claims to be Christian saying that Christian apostates should be killed, but is very very rare).

 

Does anybody want to defend the number of Muslims that appear to believe that the death penalty for apostasy is a good thing based on the Pew poll?

 

Does anybody think those types of ideas aren't connected to the points that Corcaigh was making?

 

Anybody?

Honestly I would like to see more polling, because one poll really isn't always the end all be all. I haven't been able to find any other reputable polls but I think citing only a single poll that spans such a large population across such a large area and especially some of these areas where there is still limited access and political and religious freedoms makes for some, I would argue, unreliable numbers. I know for example that a lot of the polls in Egypt following the revolution were all over the place because its really difficult to find a good sample in some areas. 

But to look at the poll if it is an Islam thing shouldn't the poll show that there is consistent support for something, instead this poll shows drastic swings between populations. So that should show that it isn't just Islam as the only driving force there must be other factors otherwise you would see relatively equal support across the board. 

To take your example of Egypt, there is and has been very heated conflicts between the Coptic population and the Muslim population in Egypt for quite a while. When I lived there there was a few incidents between families that got really ugly (there was also the church bombing in Alexandria but the response to that was overwhelmingly in favor of unity and Muslims went to protect Christian places of worship). So I think that because of highly publicized incidents where one family member converted and sparked off a huge conflict there may be some skewed views towards more radical interpretations. Additionally, some government like Sudan and Saudi Arabia use blasphemy or apostacy laws as political tools to repress dissension and send warnings (although they rarely kill someone for apostacy or blasphemy the threat is still heard) so that also plays into responses.

I think those numbers indicate that there is interpretations of Islam (some of them pretty popular) that are radical but I think that there are bigger cultural issues driving a lot of these interpretations and groups. The Wahabbism was a political movement before all else as were a lot of these more radical strains and interpretations and I think trying to extricate the political, social, and economic factors that contribute to these views from the religious is difficult if not impossible. 

I think the poll represents and interesting data point, and something that should be analyzed within the Islamic world but I think reducing it to religion is troublesome because religion and how its practiced are heavily influenced (and some would say determined) by economic, political, and social factors and I think this shows with the differences between support in different countries and areas.

I guess when it boils down to it my argument is that Islam and its nature isn't necessarily responsible for this extremism but rather the historical, political, social, and economic factors where its practiced play a large role in its interpretation which then plays a role in how its viewed elsewhere (like say Western Europe). I think history has shown us that any group will pervert whatever they need if you hit the right mixture of social, economic, and historical factors and recently Islam has been experiencing this. What we should be looking for is ways that we can change that balance and start to move people away from the more extreme radical elements and supporting someone like El-Sisi in Egypt as he slaughters Muslim Brotherhood protesters is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Stuff like that will do nothing but radicalize the population and turn them to violence. I think that is a pretty good microcosm of how extremism and radicalism can take hold and become ugly. 

[mcsluggo]

censorship in a ultra orthodox paper is a real problem?

 

or was it the martyr bit?

 

disgusting appalling revolting sexism with a booger eating moronic justification is a real problem.  Yes.

[jpyaks3]

And I'll point out that the death penalty for apostasy arose in Islam pretty early (maybe with Muhomad (the question was put to SHF earlier, and I didn't see a response from him)

Quick response to this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kashif-n-chaudhry/does-the-koran-endorse-ap_b_5539236.html

 

Apostasy laws - like the blasphemy laws - have been borrowed from older scriptures. They have no basis in the Koran. This is why clerics who espouse such extremist beliefs show continued reluctance to debate Muslim scholars and intellectuals on this issue. The fourth Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, for instance, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, authored a detailed rebuttal of the Maududian philosophy on apostasy several decades ago.

In short, it is not due to the scholarship of the Koran, but because of the ignorance and insecurity of extremist clerics that countries like Sudan punish apostasy. The Koran upholds Freedom of Conscience in clear terms.

 

 

[twa]

disgusting appalling revolting sexism with a booger eating moronic justification is a real problem.  Yes.

 

seems to fall under freedom of the press and of religion, which certainly includes the moronic 

 

They probably look at the NYT's in the same fashion.

 

as long as neither impose on another it's not a real problem imo

[mcsluggo]

seems to fall under freedom of the press and of religion, which certainly includes the moronic 

 

They probably look at the NYT's in the same fashion.

 

as long as neither impose on another it's not a real problem imo

 

did i say this moron should be jailed or censored?   

 

no.  I said he was an asshole and a moron, and part of the problem.  

[Elessar78]

 

[KS, the Insoumis] For Muslims, happiness after death when they won paradise. Forward is to conquer the world and Islamize all the inhabitants of the earth as ordered Muhammad: "I will fight men until they say there is no god but Allah.""

 

 

"Funny" thing is that as far as I understand it Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same God.

 

Even "funnier" is that a lot of violence through the centuries stems from differences in opinion on HOW this same God should be worshipped and the details of divinity. Seems pretty trivial. 

 

Even "funnier" is that this God is omnipotent yet "you" think he needs the help of mortals to correct injustice. 

[JoeWolf990]

Free speech is free speech.  The last few posts are getting very close to "they got what was coming".

no one is getting close to that. Please do not attempt to put words in our mouths.

[twa]

did i say this moron should be jailed or censored?   

 

no.  I said he was an asshole and a moron, and part of the problem.  

 

well if we could eliminate assholes and morons we could cure most problems.....deciding who gets to decide who they are gets problematic