Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swedish-american here. I think it is crossing the line to display these images publicly. I am not muslim--but I find such disregard for their religion and culture highly offensive. The French people are completely tone deaf and arrogant wrt to their treatment of minorities in their countries. They are hiding behind the cloak of "free press" and it is outrageous. And yes, I'm aware that Scandinavian countries are as bad on this issue if not worse.

I completely agree. My brother is living in Paris right now and I am scared to death for him. He has a very obvious Muslim name and there is currently a lot of backlash because of the Charlie Hebdo thing. Yesterday, in France a pregnant Muslim woman was attacked by men who pulled her hijab off asking her to take that *** off and beat her up while she was screaming that she was pregnant, she lost the baby. Mosques were also vandalized along with Arab businesses and a car belonging to a middle eastern family was shot at. Unless we start having honest conversations about the underlying issues, this will never get resolved.

This heinous act is intolerable, and I'm hoping those who did will be punished severely.

That said, I think it is the height of irresponsibility on your part to infer that this incident happened yesterday (it happened 6/18/13) as a result of Charlie Hebdo. Additionally, your referring to a massacre as "the Charlie Hebdo thing" is condescending and sounds more like an inconvenience than what it is which is an execution.

However, as we have repeatedly pointed out, it's about free speech even if one of your statements is partially untrue.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been watching this thread, and actually met a woman wearing a niqab today. I went to Costco after work and got stuck in a line where there was a price check/food stamp issue that lasted for what seemed like forever. The Muslim lady behind me was really nice. We didn't want to get out of the line and go into another really long line, because - murphy's law dictates when we do that the issue will be resolved and we will be stuck in a new crazy long line. I was a bit scared of talking to her, but when I struck up a conversation about how I always seem to get in the line that has "problems", she was super nice. It was a bit strange only seeing her eyes, and she had a small daughter also wearing a veil but we were stuck in the line for a long time so we talked a lot.

I felt weird that the things I were buying were bacon, dog treats, and alcohol, thinking she would judge me, but she was really cool. This is not a troll post. After talking to her for a while the veil didn't really make a difference, I could judge her personality from our interaction. It has made me feel differently about my previous thoughts on niquab.

I still don't really understand it, being an atheist and not liking religion very much, but it definitely bothers me a lot less after interacting with a woman who wears it.

I'm glad you had this experience and are sharing it. I think usually we are scared of what we do not now. I can understand how the niqab can be intimidating, and many would be surprised that under the veil,is just another woman who is not that much different from us. The more these conversations happen, I think, the better it will be for all of us. We are not that much different after all. Oh and don't worry about what you had in your cart, she would not judge you for that, just like you didn't judge her for her niqab.

I don't like the niqab (or the burka, where you don't even see the woman's eyes), I am not scared by it and I am not intimidated by it. I don't like what it symbolizes, the need for a woman to cover her body completely leaving just two pupils out so she can see obstacles, so men cannot see her. all the explanations I have read about it (are frankly the same explanations are given for the need of separate areas in buses or sidewalk in ultra orthodox areas in Israel, so this issue is not limited to Islam, although with the iqab is more visible) are that no part of the body of the woman should be seen by men who are not her relatives so she cannot "provoque" impure sexual thoughts and desires in random men. even women who wore it and said they did it willingly and happily said that they felt free because they could go aroung without sexually arousing men or getting unwanted sexual advances. I find this profoundly wrong and sad. as we all know, there is absolutely nothing in the Quran that says that women should weak a niqab, so wearing is not a religious requirement. it is not by chance that the countries where the niqab originated in the Arabia peninsula are places where women have no voice, cannot drive, do not leave their homes without a man, have very limited opportunities to work. I am not surprised that under the niqab the poster found a nice woman like her (and found very funnny that the poster was grateful to the niqab clad woman for being "cool" about her bying pork and alcohol - I wonder why she thought the woman was going to judge her). the poster should have asked the niqab clad woman if she waws working and what job. a trial attorney? a federal judge? a surgeon? an airline pilot? even an airline hostess (none of the hostesses of the Saudi Arabia airline I saw at Dulles wore a niqab, they all had a veil on the hair, but otherwise they w3ere normally dressed)? or a mailwoman, the one who walks around your neighborhood putting the mail in mailboxes, or the fed ex person who rings at your door so you can sign for the package? or the metro bus driver, your child school teacher, the one who spends her day with him and his classmates every day and see you at the parents-teacher conference or during the field trip you chaperone. I bet that nice woman is none of these things. failing to see that a hijab does not prevent a woman from having a normal life, but a burka does is disingenous. this has nothing to do with fear of the unknown, this has to do with recognizing reality.

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

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 new hostage situations in Paris right now suspected to be related to the Charlie Hebdo attack - 5 hostages taken and a siege going on at a kosher grocery store, and another hostage taking by the airport.

The brothers are saying they are ready to die as martyrs. I just hope the hostages survive.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:[I completely agree. My brother is living in Paris right now and I am scared to death for him. He has a very obvious Muslim name and there is currently a lot of backlash because of the Charlie Hebdo thing. Yesterday, in France a pregnant Muslim woman was attacked by men who pulled her hijab off asking her to take that *** off and beat her up while she was screaming that she was pregnant, she lost the baby. Mosques were also vandalized along with Arab businesses and a car belonging to a middle eastern family was shot at. Unless we start having honest conversations about the underlying issues, this will never get resolved.

Please quote your sources. I am currently in France and I have not heard anything about a pregnant woman loosing her baby, a car being shot at, or mosques vandalized. There are reports of three facts that happened near mosques since the Charlie Hebdo killing (a shot, and two small explosions), with no victim. Those acts have been strongly crititized by the media, politicians, and other people in France. Do you have any link to the facts that you are quoting? Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swedish-american here. I think it is crossing the line to display these images publicly. I am not muslim--but I find such disregard for their religion and culture highly offensive. The French people are completely tone deaf and arrogant wrt to their treatment of minorities in their countries. They are hiding behind the cloak of "free press" and it is outrageous. And yes, I'm aware that Scandinavian countries are as bad on this issue if not worse.

I completely agree. My brother is living in Paris right now and I am scared to death for him. He has a very obvious Muslim name and there is currently a lot of backlash because of the Charlie Hebdo thing. Yesterday, in France a pregnant Muslim woman was attacked by men who pulled her hijab off asking her to take that *** off and beat her up while she was screaming that she was pregnant, she lost the baby. Mosques were also vandalized along with Arab businesses and a car belonging to a middle eastern family was shot at. Unless we start having honest conversations about the underlying issues, this will never get resolved.

Okay, I'm listening. Shall we start by saying a not insignificant number of people believe Islam is not a religion of peace?

France is not a very tolerant country, we all know that. But Muslima seems to believe that if she just points out often enough that it was those Muslims who kill people, and not these people, that the problem will be solved.

I don't think that Islam is inherently violent. Certainly Christianity has plenty of violence and aggression in its history. But that time is passed. For Islam, that time is not past, it is now.

Anonymous wrote:I find it disturbing that you are so defensive of Islamic terrorists who describe their killings of being in defense of Islam. The terrorists themselves say they committed the killings in defense of Muhamed who is the religious profit. Why do you find it so difficult to admit that the killings are done by Islamic terrorists? That is the truth and not rascist.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been watching this thread, and actually met a woman wearing a niqab today. I went to Costco after work and got stuck in a line where there was a price check/food stamp issue that lasted for what seemed like forever. The Muslim lady behind me was really nice. We didn't want to get out of the line and go into another really long line, because - murphy's law dictates when we do that the issue will be resolved and we will be stuck in a new crazy long line. I was a bit scared of talking to her, but when I struck up a conversation about how I always seem to get in the line that has "problems", she was super nice. It was a bit strange only seeing her eyes, and she had a small daughter also wearing a veil but we were stuck in the line for a long time so we talked a lot.

I felt weird that the things I were buying were bacon, dog treats, and alcohol, thinking she would judge me, but she was really cool. This is not a troll post. After talking to her for a while the veil didn't really make a difference, I could judge her personality from our interaction. It has made me feel differently about my previous thoughts on niquab.

I still don't really understand it, being an atheist and not liking religion very much, but it definitely bothers me a lot less after interacting with a woman who wears it.

I'm glad you had this experience and are sharing it. I think usually we are scared of what we do not now. I can understand how the niqab can be intimidating, and many would be surprised that under the veil,is just another woman who is not that much different from us. The more these conversations happen, I think, the better it will be for all of us. We are not that much different after all. Oh and don't worry about what you had in your cart, she would not judge you for that, just like you didn't judge her for her niqab.

I don't like the niqab (or the burka, where you don't even see the woman's eyes), I am not scared by it and I am not intimidated by it. I don't like what it symbolizes, the need for a woman to cover her body completely leaving just two pupils out so she can see obstacles, so men cannot see her. all the explanations I have read about it (are frankly the same explanations are given for the need of separate areas in buses or sidewalk in ultra orthodox areas in Israel, so this issue is not limited to Islam, although with the iqab is more visible) are that no part of the body of the woman should be seen by men who are not her relatives so she cannot "provoque" impure sexual thoughts and desires in random men. even women who wore it and said they did it willingly and happily said that they felt free because they could go aroung without sexually arousing men or getting unwanted sexual advances. I find this profoundly wrong and sad. as we all know, there is absolutely nothing in the Quran that says that women should weak a niqab, so wearing is not a religious requirement. it is not by chance that the countries where the niqab originated in the Arabia peninsula are places where women have no voice, cannot drive, do not leave their homes without a man, have very limited opportunities to work. I am not surprised that under the niqab the poster found a nice woman like her (and found very funnny that the poster was grateful to the niqab clad woman for being "cool" about her bying pork and alcohol - I wonder why she thought the woman was going to judge her). the poster should have asked the niqab clad woman if she waws working and what job. a trial attorney? a federal judge? a surgeon? an airline pilot? even an airline hostess (none of the hostesses of the Saudi Arabia airline I saw at Dulles wore a niqab, they all had a veil on the hair, but otherwise they w3ere normally dressed)? or a mailwoman, the one who walks around your neighborhood putting the mail in mailboxes, or the fed ex person who rings at your door so you can sign for the package? or the metro bus driver, your child school teacher, the one who spends her day with him and his classmates every day and see you at the parents-teacher conference or during the field trip you chaperone. I bet that nice woman is none of these things. failing to see that a hijab does not prevent a woman from having a normal life, but a burka does is disingenous. this has nothing to do with fear of the unknown, this has to do with recognizing reality.

Anonymous wrote:Swedish-american here. I think it is crossing the line to display these images publicly. I am not muslim--but I find such disregard for their religion and culture highly offensive. The French people are completely tone deaf and arrogant wrt to their treatment of minorities in their countries. They are hiding behind the cloak of "free press" and it is outrageous. And yes, I'm aware that Scandinavian countries are as bad on this issue if not worse.

Anonymous wrote:I've been watching this thread, and actually met a woman wearing a niqab today. I went to Costco after work and got stuck in a line where there was a price check/food stamp issue that lasted for what seemed like forever. The Muslim lady behind me was really nice. We didn't want to get out of the line and go into another really long line, because - murphy's law dictates when we do that the issue will be resolved and we will be stuck in a new crazy long line. I was a bit scared of talking to her, but when I struck up a conversation about how I always seem to get in the line that has "problems", she was super nice. It was a bit strange only seeing her eyes, and she had a small daughter also wearing a veil but we were stuck in the line for a long time so we talked a lot.

I felt weird that the things I were buying were bacon, dog treats, and alcohol, thinking she would judge me, but she was really cool. This is not a troll post. After talking to her for a while the veil didn't really make a difference, I could judge her personality from our interaction. It has made me feel differently about my previous thoughts on niquab.

I still don't really understand it, being an atheist and not liking religion very much, but it definitely bothers me a lot less after interacting with a woman who wears it.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Muslima, you really do not get it. there is no double standard, the people who were killed yesterday, of whom you admit you know nothing so may be you should learn a little, fought for their, and our, freedom to post satire about anything. they were sued multiple times by catholic organizations and won. the catholics who did not like their cartoons sued them and lost, did not kill them, firebomb their office, prevent them from publishing cartoons. CH did a special issue about Islam and they did an issue about the Holocaust. nothing happened after the Holocaust issue, but they were firebombed after the issue on Islam and killed yesterday by people who allegedly said they were avenging the prophet. newspapers are today re-printing many cartoons by CH, including cartoons depicting priests, politicians, jews and others. they print especially the ones about Islam not because of a double standard, but because the ones about Islam are the only ones that can cost people lives and the only ones people got serious death threats for. the person who wrote this article has no shame

Since there is no double standard, can you explain why Charlie Hebdo fired one of its employees for something he published because it was anti-Semitic ? why was the employee sued? I thought it was all satirical? Oh and last summer, France became the 1st country to ban pro-palestinian demonstrations . Why? Where is the freedom of speech? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2697194/Outrage-France-country-world-ban-pro-Palestine-demos.html The larger point here was that France has chosen security over speech previously and so the absoluteness of yesterday's Freedom of Speech is slightly disingenuous!

again, there is no double standard. CH mocked everything and everybody, including the Jews. just look at the second cartoon that Jeff posted yesterday depicting a caricature of a Jew with long pointed nose and so on. they did an entire section on the Holocaust. if you know Europe, you must this the Holocaust is THE TABOO there if there is one, nobody make fun of it, denying it is a crime in several countries. these people made an issue of satirical cartoons on the Holocaust in a country with millions of survivors or relatives of survivors of extermination camps. the history of the magazine simply shows clearly that they did not bow before Jews, just look at their cartoons, if you argue that CH had a special soft angle for Jews then you really do not want to see the facts.

about the cartoonist that was fired, I am not CH, I just see the news about it, it does not look at all that they fired somebody for mocking the Jews. the cartoonist apparently wrote a piece on a very specific person (the son of Sarkozy, then still president of France if I remember, who was engaged to a rich Israeli heiress) saying that he was converting to Judaism in order to get married to the rich girl and as a Jew get ahead in life. apparently this was not true, the guy did not convert to Judaism and was not pleased. when the journalist refused to apologize, he was let go. the employee was sued by others, not by CH (by a sort of French anti defamation league, which lost in court). as for the demonstrations, others have already pointed out that you are really disingenuous. we can discuss about the ban, but at the height of the Gaza war last summer demonstrations against Israel degenerated violent attacks against other French people (Jewish) and synagogues. there is Islamophobia in France, but there is also anti-Semitism, which result I attacks against Jewish people and destruction of property (synagogues, Jewish cemeteries, and so on) and Muslim youths from the banlieues have been involved in these attacks. so the situation is a little more complicated that "look France banned protests against Palestinians, the first country in Europe". and again, you still get confused about the issue of limitation of freedom of speech. the ban on the demonstrations was motivated by the need to avoid further violence BY PART OF THE DEMONSTRATORS. the cartoonists did not act violently. you seems to say that THE CARTOONISTS' freedom of speech should have been limited by France TO AVOID OTHER PEOPLE'S VIOLENCE.

In 30's America when white people were burning black people on trees, whites could equally have used this argument. After all there were cartoons even about the president! However making insulting cartoons about white people who controlled the power structures was not the same as demonizing black people?, a powerless underclass. Imagery of black people being, dumb, violent, lazy, thieves who looked like monkeys?—?upheld a political reality, the very imagery re-enforced the prejudices of those in power and subjugated blacks.

The same with Jews in Nazi Germany?. Imagine today’s spurious and conceited argument being used by the Nazi’s?. Could a German newspaper hide behind the claim it also made fun of white Germans? How unjustified that only the Jews complained so! After all Germans didn’t complain when they were made fun of?. ?Those backward Jews and their greedy religion didn’t understand free speech!

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima, I think you generally bring a useful viewpoint ( to which I disagree to varying degrees), but you have know that the pro-Palestinian demonstrations degenerated into numerous attacks to synagogues and other anti-Semitic acts. They were not anti-Israeli-policy -- they were against Jews. People chanting "death to the Jews" in the middle of Paris. People throwing stones to synagogues. You know that that's the reason some of them were banned -- for public safety. Please don't erode your credibility by portraying that banning them were a demonstration of Islamophobia. I agree that there is quite a bit of Islamophobia in France, but this is a bad example.

I doubt that every single person protesting was rioting and throwing stones at synagogues. But you prove my point that France has chosen security over speech previously and so the absoluteness of yesterday's Freedom of Speech disingenuous! We can agree to disagree.

Muslima, do you understand what you are saying????? France (right or not) banned protests in support of Gaza last summer after prior protests had degenerated into riots resulting in violent attacks against French Jews and synagogues. so the ban (again, right or wrong) was AGAINST THE VIOLENT PROTESTERS, their freedom of speech was limited because some of them were expressing it by attacking other people. the cartoonist did not violently attack anybody, they drew satirical cartoons, there was no need to limit their free speech because they did not hurt anybody.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just announced there are 88,000 police and security personnel in France looking for the murders. They are determined to get them.

I wonder why we haven't heard more about the kid that turned himself in. It seems they should have been able to determine whether or not he was involved by now.

I wonder was this kid set up? How did the murderers get his ID card (assuming he's innocent)? From the International Business Times:

Mourad Hamyd surrendered himself after reportedly seeing his name circulating on the media, but some reports now suggest that he had only gone to the police to clarify that he was in school at the time of the attack.
Hamyd, reportedly a student at a high school in Charleville-Mezieres near Reims has been named as one of the three suspects who attacked Charlie Hebdo office, along with two brothers - Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi.
Authorities claimed that Hamyd, the youngest suspect, drove the car in which the attackers fled after the shooting and was identified by an ID card left behind in the abandoned car, but many netizens have voiced the possibility of a possible decoy.

Anonymous wrote:This is why I wouldn't move to Saudi Arabia even though I love Mecca & Medina, I would probably have been flogged by now . Fun fact: There is a book out there titled "In Defense of Flogging" written by a former Baltimore City police officer and professor of law. Imagine if a Muslim had written it?!
The problem is not Radical Islam, but Radical Igorance~

"Amongst the friends of Allah, the Qur'an is considered as a love letter from Allah, which inevitably is read continuously to remind them of their Beloved. "Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri

well, maybe branch out and read a few different philosophy books.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just announced there are 88,000 police and security personnel in France looking for the murders. They are determined to get them.

I wonder why we haven't heard more about the kid that turned himself in. It seems they should have been able to determine whether or not he was involved by now.