Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:"Consider also the "thought experiment" offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the "unity rally" in Paris on 11 January "wearing a badge that said 'Je suis Chérif'" - the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. "How would the crowd have reacted?... Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?" Do you disagree with Klug's conclusion that the man "would have been lucky to get away with his life"? "

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/6462584

Yes. Your darling Dieudonne has already publicly said that "I am Charlie Coulibaly" and has compared the massacre in Paris to "a magic moment comparable to the Big Bang." He's doing fine and sends you hugs and kisses.

Right!!! That is why , after making that statement on Facebook btw, not at the unity march, he has been placed under investigation by the French government for inciting terrorism. Boom!!!! You need to be more up to date with current events. ......Fun fact, Dieudonne was also fined previously, by said government for saying that the Jews are the biggest crooks in the world $$

You mean he "published" something and didn't get hurt??? Fancy that...

He's also been under investigation for a while for tax fraud and misuse of corporate assets.

Just curious, why did you add the $$ sign after your paraphrase?

You are a hypocrite if you have been defending the absolutism of Free speech laws in France while applauding when Dieudonne's speech has been limited over the past year. He is a satirical comedian like CH, who was very popular and made fun of everyone till he made fun of the Jews and was deemed anti-Semitic. He said "the biggest crooks in the world are the Jews" and got Fined. He has had multitude of shows canceled by the French government and more than 80 judicial cases with them, so yeh his right to freedom of speech is actually being threatened by the government. So , You Defender of Speech, should be right there with him marching along him and saying #JesuisDieudonne

People sued Charlie Hebdo too. No one shot Dieudonne. Hypocrite.

The French government Stopped Dieudonne, they didn't stop CH, if you don't get that, I can't help you.

How did they stop him? He's been spewing shit for years and as recently as last week. Most governments do limit speech that is explicitly encouraging killing people.

The government this week ordered concert halls across France to cancel shows to be performed by Dieudonné M'bala M'bala on the grounds that he represents a threat to public order.

Thirty-eight times in recent years the French authorities have charged the comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala with violating anti-hate laws. The government has urged cities and towns to ban his performances, and some have done so, canceling his sold-out shows. Senior officials have condemned him as an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier who is inciting hatred.

Anonymous wrote:The French government stops what's clearly hate speech. The French government doesn't stop satirical cartoons. But you're not going to get it.

Anonymous wrote:^^ Do you realize that you are implicitly saying that a repulsive anti-Semite like Dieudonne has the right to spew hate, but that the CH cartoonists should have censured themselves? Wow. Wow.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:"Consider also the "thought experiment" offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the "unity rally" in Paris on 11 January "wearing a badge that said 'Je suis Chérif'" - the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. "How would the crowd have reacted?... Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?" Do you disagree with Klug's conclusion that the man "would have been lucky to get away with his life"? "

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/6462584

Yes. Your darling Dieudonne has already publicly said that "I am Charlie Coulibaly" and has compared the massacre in Paris to "a magic moment comparable to the Big Bang." He's doing fine and sends you hugs and kisses.

Right!!! That is why , after making that statement on Facebook btw, not at the unity march, he has been placed under investigation by the French government for inciting terrorism. Boom!!!! You need to be more up to date with current events. ......Fun fact, Dieudonne was also fined previously, by said government for saying that the Jews are the biggest crooks in the world $$

You mean he "published" something and didn't get hurt??? Fancy that...

He's also been under investigation for a while for tax fraud and misuse of corporate assets.

Just curious, why did you add the $$ sign after your paraphrase?

You are a hypocrite if you have been defending the absolutism of Free speech laws in France while applauding when Dieudonne's speech has been limited over the past year. He is a satirical comedian like CH, who was very popular and made fun of everyone till he made fun of the Jews and was deemed anti-Semitic. He said "the biggest crooks in the world are the Jews" and got Fined. He has had multitude of shows canceled by the French government and more than 80 judicial cases with them, so yeh his right to freedom of speech is actually being threatened by the government. So , You Defender of Speech, should be right there with him marching along him and saying #JesuisDieudonne

People sued Charlie Hebdo too. No one shot Dieudonne. Hypocrite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Yasir Qadhi quote is really bugging me: "Unless and until people of Western countries start asking themselves, 'Is it really worth it to invade other lands on false pretexts, to detain innocents for decades on end, to torture prisoners, to support brutal Apartheid states, to bully minorities by passing draconian laws and demonize their faith, etc.', there's only so much we as Muslims can do to prevent the hot-headed radicals in our midst as well.' "

Is Qadhi's quote really true in the hearts of Muslims, "there's only so much we as Muslims can do" to stop these folks from murdering innocents?

Another PP here....why does this quote bother you? IMO, it gives the proper context for the move towards radicalism in a lot of places. Also, and rightfully so, there are radicalized folks in any religion and you cannot hold the rest of that religion accountable for the acts of the radicals. I mean, most Muslims have condemned the attacks - what else would you have them do?

I find the idea very medieval, honestly. I can understand the sentiment that those religious extremists and their behavior has nothing to do with me. But that's not what he said, nor is it what he seemed to mean. He said when the West stops doing X, then we will do more to stop the hot-headed radicals in our midst.

It is what one of the Nigerian military leaders said: elect me and I will stop the BH, since they are my Muslim brothers. When doesn't he go ahead and stop them now?

He's not saying that. He's saying that they don't have the power to stop terrorists as long as the west gives radicals a cause to rally around. I think that is easily understandable. The muslim community has the power to persuade them but it's an uphill battle.

Anonymous wrote:
I love it. Let's leave our countries b/c we're persecuted. Then, let's move to Europe or to the US or to Australia, for example. Let's then try to push our agenda on others by constantly trying to define Islam to the masses b/c the Westerners don't see the true Islam.

ugh

If it's that much trouble, then fix your homeland instead of abandoning it.

Why leave an Islamic nation - where you can practice your religion freely - and enter into a country where you always have to face questions?

You are so deep in cliches, it's unfunny.

First, people leave their countries for all kinds of reasons. It doesn't have to be persecution. You have no idea why her family moved. As long as they did so legally and don't break laws while here, it's beside the point why they moved.

Second, and I feel that this is something you truly don't get. "Islamic" nations (btw, there is no such thing, there are only Muslim-majority countries) have nothing to do with Islam. Defending and explaining Islam has absolutely nothing to do with explaining or justifying the behavior of "Islamic nations". These two are completely unrelated questions. Answering questions about Islam and Muslims has nothing to do with explaining the actions or policy of "Islamic nations." Likewise, she has nothing to do with immigration policies, foreign affairs or internal politics of "Islamic nations." She has zero input into any of this.

Third, in a democracy all kinds of people push all kinds of agendas all the time. Her agenda is no better or worse than yours. She is entitled to as much space in the public discourse as you.

Fourth, Islam in America can be practiced a lot more freely than in many Muslim-majority countries, depending on the kind of Islam.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:"Consider also the "thought experiment" offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the "unity rally" in Paris on 11 January "wearing a badge that said 'Je suis Chérif'" - the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. "How would the crowd have reacted?... Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?" Do you disagree with Klug's conclusion that the man "would have been lucky to get away with his life"? "

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/6462584

Yes. Your darling Dieudonne has already publicly said that "I am Charlie Coulibaly" and has compared the massacre in Paris to "a magic moment comparable to the Big Bang." He's doing fine and sends you hugs and kisses.

Right!!! That is why , after making that statement on Facebook btw, not at the unity march, he has been placed under investigation by the French government for inciting terrorism. Boom!!!! You need to be more up to date with current events. ......Fun fact, Dieudonne was also fined previously, by said government for saying that the Jews are the biggest crooks in the world $$

You mean he "published" something and didn't get hurt??? Fancy that...

He's also been under investigation for a while for tax fraud and misuse of corporate assets.

Just curious, why did you add the $$ sign after your paraphrase?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as liberal as you can get, and I do not defend Islam. I agree with Sam Harris that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas. No matter how you turn it, the basic principles of Islam are not those of a tolerant religion.

I don't defend fundamentalist Christianity either. Both religions have, at their very base, very bad ideas. That doesn't mean that you can't water them down, edit them or ignore the ideas/commandments that you don't like and consider yourself a member of that religion.

What it does mean is that, with very little effort, you can find in both religious texts plenty of justification to enslave, murder or obliterate anyone that disrespects you.

Why do you qualify Christianity in a manner that you don't for Islam?

I'm not that poster, but I could have written that post. I think fundamentalist Christianity is intolerant in a way that's inconsistent with a straight reading of the gospels. Jesus never talked about homosexuals, he encouraged Martha to leave the kitchen and come hear his teachings, and so on. Fundamentalist Christianity relies on Old Testament attitudes towards women and gays that I consider the gospels to have abandoned at the same time they abandoned dietary laws. Also, the gospels are all about avoiding war, loving your enemy, and so on. I've read the Quran from front to back (in translation, but no help for that), and I saw very different messages about the umma versus everybody else.

I guess I'll add what I see as problematic about Islam. I'm still thinking about this, but at the moment my concerns have little to do with banning religious expression like the niqab, and little to do with divorce or other laws, if that's what people freely decide to live by.

Instead it's this idea of theocracy: that a good Muslim needs to live by sharia law, and for that you need a Muslim government. Wanting to implement sharia law opens the door to theocracies, and there is nothing good about theocracies IMO. The problem with the CH assassinations was partly a reaction to bigotry, poverty, and the rest. But the CH attack was also based partly this idea that France's secular values are meritless just because they're not sharia law. (Along with the romanticism of a caliphate that never existed like they think it did, but that's a digression.) Of course, Christianity had horrible theocracies for much of history, but the Enlightenment saw a move towards taking the "render unto Caesar..." line as calling for a separation of church and state, and you saw this 200 years ago in the US constitution, even if we're still fighting conservatives for gay marriage.

I know that millions of Muslims area already there, and that they appreciate democracy and secular values. But the caliphate/theocracy/caliphate idea persists, and whatever you think of religious expression like the niqab, the idea that there's only one valid form of government, and that's a theocracy with sharia law, seems pernicious to me. I can't remember what's in the Quran about establishing an Islamic government, apart from various elements of sharia law itself. So I guess that's my next line of inquiry as I think about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:"Consider also the "thought experiment" offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the "unity rally" in Paris on 11 January "wearing a badge that said 'Je suis Chérif'" - the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. "How would the crowd have reacted?... Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?" Do you disagree with Klug's conclusion that the man "would have been lucky to get away with his life"? "

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/6462584

Yes. Your darling Dieudonne has already publicly said that "I am Charlie Coulibaly" and has compared the massacre in Paris to "a magic moment comparable to the Big Bang." He's doing fine and sends you hugs and kisses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

It seems to be hard for you to understand that, post-Holocaust, Jews are a protected class in Europe. Luckily, you're here in America, where you can mock whoever you wish. Have at it.

Given Europe's role and enslavement of Africans, torture and murders of millions of Africans for decades in the name of the slave trade, maybe then, they should have made Africans or Black people a protected class and made the denial of slavery a crime punishable by law? After all, slavery has been recognized as a crime against humanity

Muslima, you really need to try harder (and I have never heard of anybody denying the historic fact of slavery, have you ever heard of anybody saying that black slaves actually came on their own to the US and were never enslaved?). I am troubled by laws that punish Holocaust deniers (and I am from Europe), but you need to understand that these laws were passed after European governments that embraced the Nazi idelogy, in Germany and elsewhere, theorized the annihilation of an entire etnic group, resulting in ther metodical extermination of about 6 millions people. in some countries Jews were wiped out, in France about 1 fourth of the jewish population was killed. This kind of ideology is still alive in Europe.

It doesn't make the censoring okay. People with that ideology are rioting in the streets of Dresden to demand an end to Muslim immigration to Germany. But you don't see the government of Germany muzzling them. Because if they did, then they would have to silence people with an opposing viewpoint. You have to concede Muslima's point that selective censorship is hypocritical. In this case, Germany has it wrong. France has it wrong when it tries to ban the hijab. I understand her viewpoint on hypocrisy about this issue. But I don't understand her seemingly conditional viewpoints on when it is wrong and when it isn't based upon whether you are a part of the oppressed group or not, anymore than I understand your attempt to make such an argument here. Free speech means tolerating speech that you find offensive in the name of being able to speak yourself. THAT is what people "need to understand."

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:OK, So since that's all you got from that, I refuse to condemn, there I said it: I refuse to condemn! !!! Now, use your free speech and flaunt your moral superiority over me~

I don't need to flaunt because you just conceded the moral high ground, and admitted to your own hypocrisy. Which is ironic given that you feel so free to speak your mind here and condemn the hypocrisy of others. Can't you see that? I don't make conditional moral exceptions for murderers because they are a part of my religious or ethnic group. Why do you?

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I truly believe that what is happening across the Levant is political... I think any solution to this can not ignore the context of this violence: there are political and social causes that allow radical voices to be heard and acted upon, and this has nothing to do with the core values or practices of Muslims as a whole. We need to present a different ideology to the marginalized who fall for the radical rhetoric, and that starts with a conversation, but any attempt to modify the core values of the religion itself will fail.

Thank you Muslima. I only disagree with one thing -- we cannot extricate religion and politics in Iraq. Here in the US, that separation is much more distinct, but not in Iraq. That is my point -- Islam and politics are so intertwined, to say an event is only caused by politics and not religion is not accurate at all.

I agree with you -- "we need to present a different ideology to the marginalized who fall for the radical rhetoric, and that starts with a conversation." Well said. A conversation about what? An ideology about what? The disenfrachised Maslawis didn't commit to nonviolence to seek political gains. They welcomed a violent group of Sunnis who promised power and control. To them it was a win- (political) -win (religious) situation. Religion is absolutely and unquestionably a driver in what occurred on June 10th.

You know, the Iraqi scholar Fanar Haddad stated that more often than not, the intricacies of faith and theology are about as relevant in Iraqi sectarian dynamics as Christianity is in the rhetoric of European far-right groups.It is religion as identity rather than religion as faith that is being mobilized . Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life, and so it differs from other religions in many ways. However, the relationship between 'Islam' and politics is not as simple as many make it seem.. So, 'Islam cannot mix with politics' is not an accurate statement. Nor is 'political matters cannot be dissociated from Islam' an accurate statement either. A lot of Muslims have created a "do-it yourself Islam" that is used to justify every action against the people that they perceive as oppressors. I quoted Yasir Qadhi yesterday, a Muslim scholar that I profoundly respect, and will repeat what he said again since he is way more eloquent than I am. Talking about these issues and he said every single terrorist, from Bin Laden himself, to the shoe-bomber and under-bomber and Boston bomber and every other bomber in between, ALWAYS mentions the deaths of civilians in Muslims lands as a direct cause of his own terrorist operations. While I continue to oppose these groups who claim to defend Islam (because killing innocent people is not allowed in Islam, and because attacking the superpowers of the West will result in the deaths of even more Muslims around the world), we do need to move the conversation beyond just 'condemning' every violent act from a Muslim radical, and realize that what is at stake is the continuing appeal amongst a segment of Muslims to Islamic violence as a response to Western aggression. Unless and until people of Western countries start asking themselves, 'Is it really worth it to invade other lands on false pretexts, to detain innocents for decades on end, to torture prisoners, to support brutal Apartheid states, to bully minorities by passing draconian laws and demonize their faith, etc.', there's only so much we as Muslims can do to prevent the hot-headed radicals in our midst as well.'
As a Muslim, I denounce such wanton violence and blood being shed in the name of my faith. The question is, as an American (or British, or French...): do you as well denounce the violence that your country have wrought across the globe?What we need in today's world, other than cases of self-defense of course, is to spread a culture of mutual co-existence and multi-faith dialogue and cooperation.

The nerve. When you are pandering to Americans in an attempt to damn Europeans , you talk about how inclusive this society is and how happy you are to live here rather than in racist Europe. And then in the next breath, Americans become "you" when you are trying to justify anything Muslims do.
Guess what? If you are living here, you are as much a beneficiary of the drive for extremely cheap oil at any cost that has motivated Western interference in the Middle East for over a century. You and your family are benefiting from the social capital, economic stability and prosperity that are founded on that resource. In fact, chances are high that your family would never have been let in here absent the ensuing economic need for foreign labor.

And if you think that Middle Eastern leaders were going to share the wealth with you and enable you to stay put wherever it is you hail from had there not been any Western Imperialism, I have a bridge to sell you. There is only one instance in which that might have theoretically happened and that was under the Communist government of Mossadegh in Iran in the 50s'. I say "theoretically" because we know how things end up working out under Communist leadership.

So you are enjoying a nice lifestyle at the cost of "wringing violence throughout the world", and no amount of prayer is going to compensate for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

CNN, Fox News, and NBC news are reporting the cover and describing it -- but they are not showing it, because it is obviously soooo offensive.

Wimps.

This is an example of a fundamental difference between Europe and the US. there is nothing offensive in this cartoon, other than it depicts Mohamed, which is prohibited in the Muslim faith. News organization in the US self censor themselves and do not publish it. In Europe we think that if Islam forbids the depiction of the Mohamed, who was a historic figure and a normal man, then Muslims are free not to draw his picture, but everybody else can if they want to. when Muslima and others go on that the cartoons were racis and offensive they are in bad faith, because the big issue for Muslims is that Mohamed is depicted at all in the cartoons, not that he is depicted in a degrading manner. they are trying to impose their religous morals on us. I would never send a Mohamed cartoon to a Muslim friend because I don't want to offend him, as I would never cook a pig roast for Muslim or Jewish friend for the same reasons. but I want to have the right to eat pig and prosciutto as much as I want, and draw a cartoon of Mohamed and read cartoons made by others.