terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two brothers dead, hostage apparently unharmed.

The hostage taker in Paris neutralized, no news about the 5 hostages.

Wonder if they've gotten their 72 Houris in paradise yet

They are receiving their judgment.

[Anonymous]

They said they never intended to hurt innocents and with the exception of the body guard, they succeeded.

[jsteele]

I realize everyone's attention is on the events in Paris, but before I forget, here is what I consider a responsible way to present the cartoons:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They said they never intended to hurt innocents and with the exception of the body guard, they succeeded.

Innocents?

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women are not supposed to wear a hijab or niqab so they won't arouse men. That's ridiculous . Those who wear their hijab or niqab do it as part of their spiritual journey. Whether you believe that or not, whether you think it' s demeaning to them is irrelevant. Also your point about asking if that woman had a job and what type of job she has is a bit condescending. Many American women do not have a job, many are stay at home moms, by choice. Are they less than you because they don't have a job? Your judgemental notions and ideas are what's wrong with society today. We need more of the PP and less of you in the world!

you are purposely putting words in my mouth I never said,. there are plenty of SAHM in the US (as SAHD) and they are not less then me or you. I simply pointed out that while with a hijab you can have a normal life and do whatever you want, which can be stay at home with the kids or be a neurosurgeon or a metrobus driver, with a niqab you cannot. you conveniently chose to twist my words so you did not have to address what I was actually saying.

as for beign ridiculous that the nature of the iqab, the history of the garment, where and who have been using it for centuries, clearly supports what I am saying ( interestingly men in the Arabic peninsula never felt the need to do their spiritual journey while clad in an iqab). when the talibans captured Kabul and imposed the burka under penalty of death, do you think they were concerned by the spiritual journey of the local women? I know there are plenty of women in KSA and elsewhere who choose to wear it, it is part of their tradition, like women in India wear a sari. but the origin of the garment is to make a woman's body invisible to the outside world and it is not by chance that the iqab originated in a place where women traditionally do not leave the house without a man.

thanks for pointing out that the world would be a better place with less people like me. you are wrong. I have never ever imposed my opinions with violence on anybody, I am a foreigner in the US and I live here and I accept and respect the laws of this place where I am a guest. I strongly desagree with a lot of things here, some of them I find them wrong or offensive or funny, but I still show respect for what clearly is important for others. if there were more people like me, frankly I doubt the world would be worse off

I am not putting words in your mouth. You have repeated the same thing again, stating that American women who stay home choose to do so, well have you ever considered that some niqabi women also choose to stay home? And that some of them have a job? Thank God not everyone is narrow minded and I know of niqabis in the US who have an actual job, outside of their home, heck one even works at a public school in California. Is it more difficult for them to get a job? You bet, but it's their choice. And May I remind you, that many niqabis do not live in the West, they live in Muslim countries where their niqabs do NOT prevent them to get a job, as niqabs are part of the cultural norm. And yes, the world needs less of you send more of the PPs, I still stand by that!

This is gets to the heart of my problem with the hairs Jeff is trying to split, between on the one hand Muslims and Islam, which he argues are amorphous and therefore can't be criticized as a group, and the Catholic church, which he argues has a hierarchy and can therefore be criticized.

There are two issues here. First, Muslima is speaking on behalf of all muslim women who ever donned a niqab, and saying that they all do it only for spiritual reasons. She even punctuates her claim by calling PP "ridiculous" for thinking that non-spiritual reasons might be involved. As PP points out, history and tradition make Muslima's claim about other Muslim women's motives not a little suspect. At the very least, since we shouldn't be saying that "all Muslims are terrorists," then Muslima shouldn't be speaking for all niqab-wearing women.

The second issue is that one could go further, and argue that Muslima is out of sync with Islam itself. Yes, it's true there's no central Islamic hierarchy. But there is a holy book that purports to be the literal words of God. It's a very rare Muslim who thinks the Quran isn't the literal word of God, as transmitted to the prophet by the angel. Therefore, I'd argue that the Quran itself can legitimately be taken as representing "all Islam." (Note I would never argue that you can do the same with sharia or the hadith, which do vary widely across the Muslim world, although Muslima has often claimed that a given hadith speaks for "Islam" when it suits her own purposes.) Here's what the Koran says about veiling: "Oh Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should case their outer garmets over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." (Yusufali) In other words, it's to announce that you're a modest Muslim woman and to avoid sexual harassment - the latter I think we can agree involves arousal. So Muslima is out of sync with the Quran itself.

Anway. That's what bugs me about Muslima. That's also why I don't buy the distinctions Jeff draws about why you can criticize the Catholic Church but not Muslims/Islam.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I realize everyone's attention is on the events in Paris, but before I forget, here is what I consider a responsible way to present the cartoons:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

The Guardian said much the same thing this morning. Being that it's the Guardian, I pay attention. I noticed, however, that the most popular comments accused the Guardian of copping out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said they never intended to hurt innocents and with the exception of the body guard, they succeeded.

Innocents?

Everyone they killed were “innocents.” These people are the scum of the earth and deserve nothing more but to rot in hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said they never intended to hurt innocents and with the exception of the body guard, they succeeded.

Innocents?

Everyone they killed were “innocents.” These people are the scum of the earth and deserve nothing more but to rot in hell.

The cartoonists did not deserve to die, but they were not innocent.

[Muslima]

jsteele wrote:I realize everyone's attention is on the events in Paris, but before I forget, here is what I consider a responsible way to present the cartoons:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

Great article. Thanks for sharing!

"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."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So ultimately what's the lesson learned here?

Lesson I take from Paris massacre is not that we need more racist cartoons. We need less bigotry and to close widening gaps among people. - Ali Abunimah

then you did not learn much. learning not to kill people who simply express opinions you find bigoted, racist and offensive would be a good start (and that there is not "they are wrong but" for the people who did it)

This exactly. Every time there's an Islamic terrorist act some people choose to characterize the attackers as victims of the system, whatever that means,. The lesson is: radical Islam needs to be extinguished. This whole what "we" could do to offend "them" less discussion is BS and that's why in a few more months we will be here again mourning innocent victims.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

There are two issues here. First, Muslima is speaking on behalf of all muslim women who ever donned a niqab, and saying that they all do it only for spiritual reasons. She even punctuates her claim by calling PP "ridiculous" for thinking that non-spiritual reasons might be involved. As PP points out, history and tradition make Muslima's claim about other Muslim women's motives not a little suspect. At the very least, since we shouldn't be saying that "all Muslims are terrorists," then Muslima shouldn't be speaking for all niqab-wearing women.

The second issue is that one could go further, and argue that Muslima is out of sync with Islam itself. Yes, it's true there's no central Islamic hierarchy. But there is a holy book that purports to be the literal words of God. It's a very rare Muslim who thinks the Quran isn't the literal word of God, as transmitted to the prophet by the angel. Therefore, I'd argue that the Quran itself can legitimately be taken as representing "all Islam." (Note I would never argue that you can do the same with sharia or the hadith, which do vary widely across the Muslim world, although Muslima has often claimed that a given hadith speaks for "Islam" when it suits her own purposes.) Here's what the Koran says about veiling: "Oh Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should case their outer garmets over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." (Yusufali) In other words, it's to announce that you're a modest Muslim woman and to avoid sexual harassment - the latter I think we can agree involves arousal. So Muslima is out of sync with the Quran itself.

Anway. That's what bugs me about Muslima. That's also why I don't buy the distinctions Jeff draws about why you can criticize the Catholic Church but not Muslims/Islam.

I agree with you that Muslima cannot speak on behalf of all Muslims. Any statement that discusses "Islam", "Muslims", etc. must be heavily qualified to specify which type of Islam or group of Muslims you are discussing unless you are making an extremely general statement.

I disagree that the Quran represents "all Islam" in the sense that you are portraying it. The reality is that the Quran, like the Bible and even the US Constitution, is subject to interpretation and groups and individuals emphasize some parts over others (may not even know about some parts). Even the verse that you quote -- which is not in its original language -- can be interpreted a number of ways.

Again, the distinction I make between the Catholic Church and Islam is that you can point to a specific ruling or doctrine of the Catholic Church -- the official institution of Catholicism -- and criticize or disagree with that. Islam doesn't have a similar institution. Similarly, I would object to criticism of "Catholics", which like Muslims, come in many varieties (for instance, apparently in the US, the Catholic Church's birth control rules are almost universally ignored).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They said they never intended to hurt innocents and with the exception of the body guard, they succeeded.

What about the police officer who they killed - who was actually a Muslim himself?

[Anonymous]

4 hostages reported dead in the Paris situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said they never intended to hurt innocents and with the exception of the body guard, they succeeded.

What about the police officer who they killed - who was actually a Muslim himself?

And what about the unarmed female police officer killed while directing traffic?

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So ultimately what's the lesson learned here?

Lesson I take from Paris massacre is not that we need more racist cartoons. We need less bigotry and to close widening gaps among people. - Ali Abunimah

And less violence.