Message
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima, it is interesting that you cited the French law against the burka (if I understand the law prohibit the wearing in public of the full veil that totally covers the face). I am from Italy, and a law like that has been in existence for ever, well before that anybody could even think that Muslims could one day live in Italy. simply the government did not want to have people go around with faces totally covered to a point that they could not be recognized. as for the burka, I am not an expert but the Quran apparently does not say anywhere that women need to cover themselves like that. it simply says that they need to dress "modestly". "modesty" obviously changes with times and places. one hundred years ago my grandma told me that women in Italy would not weak pants because it would be considered scandalous, now they do. you can dress modestly in France as much as you want. however if you feel the need to put a blanket on your body and leave two holes for your eyes, maybe you should consider moving to Yemen, where your idea of modesty is more generally shared. decades ago women in Arab countries in North Africa (except for the Arab peninsula) did not weak the burka. now more women do it. this has nothing to do with modesty, but unfortunately with oil money that has allowed a strict interpretation of Islam by a few millions of backward uneducated desert dwellers to be shoveled down the throats of other Muslims
The issue is not whether the burqa is mandatory or not in Islam. The question is why are women, French citizens nonetheless who freely choose to wear a Burqa because they believe it is their religious right/freedom to dress that way, do not have the right under French Law to do so?And this, since 2010? So you have these Niqabis who were living in France prior to 2010 who suddenly have to change the way they dress or else be fined every single day? If we are talking about Freedom of Speech, then why aren't they allow to dress they way they choose fit? Why the double standard?
Women do NOT get to choose whether to wear a burqa or not. It is imposed on them by their family and social pressures. Just like affirmative action, gov needs to work to change society for the greater good.
You are delusional if you believe that ALL women who wear burqas do so because it is imposed on them by their family and social pressure . Also, Muslim women can NOT wear a hijab in public schools, universities, or government buildings. This has not just created a big divide in the community but also forced a lot of women to lose their jobs since they couldn't wear their scarves at work. You can not defend Freedom of Speech and then say hum no, doesn't apply to these women. These bans have also created socio-economic issues as well for the Muslim population in France. It is a fact that France prisons are disproportionally filled with Muslims. Muslims are about 8-10% in France but represent 60% -70% of Prisoners.
Muslim leaders, sociologists and human rights activists argue that more than in most other European countries, government social policies in France have served to isolate Muslims in impoverished suburbs that have high unemployment, inferior schools and substandard housing. This has helped create a generation of French-born children with little hope of social advancement and even less respect for French authority.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima, it is interesting that you cited the French law against the burka (if I understand the law prohibit the wearing in public of the full veil that totally covers the face). I am from Italy, and a law like that has been in existence for ever, well before that anybody could even think that Muslims could one day live in Italy. simply the government did not want to have people go around with faces totally covered to a point that they could not be recognized. as for the burka, I am not an expert but the Quran apparently does not say anywhere that women need to cover themselves like that. it simply says that they need to dress "modestly". "modesty" obviously changes with times and places. one hundred years ago my grandma told me that women in Italy would not weak pants because it would be considered scandalous, now they do. you can dress modestly in France as much as you want. however if you feel the need to put a blanket on your body and leave two holes for your eyes, maybe you should consider moving to Yemen, where your idea of modesty is more generally shared. decades ago women in Arab countries in North Africa (except for the Arab peninsula) did not weak the burka. now more women do it. this has nothing to do with modesty, but unfortunately with oil money that has allowed a strict interpretation of Islam by a few millions of backward uneducated desert dwellers to be shoveled down the throats of other Muslims
The issue is not whether the burqa is mandatory or not in Islam. The question is why are women, French citizens nonetheless who freely choose to wear a Burqa because they believe it is their religious right/freedom to dress that way, do not have the right under French Law to do so?And this, since 2010? So you have these Niqabis who were living in France prior to 2010 who suddenly have to change the way they dress or else be fined every single day? If we are talking about Freedom of Speech, then why aren't they allow to dress they way they choose fit? Why the double standard?
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.
However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.
This. I'm of Middle Eastern origin and one of my grandmothers was a devout Muslim ( although fortunately the rest of the family freed itself from the yoke of religion altogether). I'm also a dual French-U.S. Citizen and I'm horrified and heartbroken about this massacre.
Charlie Hebdo is a satirical publication and it pokes fun at everyone, no matter how mightly or low, whether from the right or the left, and no matter their religion. It embodies the very principles at the heart of an open and democratic society, and this is nothing more than another attempt to destroy that freedom of speech.
So Muslima, don't come here spouting any of your propaganda about how Islam is a religion of compassion. All religions are selectively compassionate towards some tiny subset of humanity and ruthlessly violent towards the rest, and Islam isn't faring too well right now. Not since the Protestant reformation has a religion killed so many of its own, let alone others, in the name of God.
I was born in the Middle East but France gave me everything that has allowed me to get where I am today: a wonderful, secular, rigorous education (to a female, no less!), welcoming and loving friends without a trace of prejudice in their heart... I could go on but I think I'll start crying.
If you're worried about the Front National, good luck. That was one fine way of ingratiating Muslims to the hearts of the average French citizen.
You have got to be kidding me. Liberte, egalite, fraternite? Well my fellow french woman, France is one of the most intolerant countries in Europe, and you can look no further than the relationship between France and its colonies. Carrying a french passport won't make me say otherwise. Just 2 years ago, repirts still showed this, France is the most racist western European country , 1 in 3 French openly states they are racist. Lepen anyone? I have spent many years in France and half of my family still lives there. There are 3 things you do not want to be in France: Arab, Black or Muslim. Va demander os jeunes des cites relegues ds les HLM ce kils pensent de ton idee d'education a la francaise, la France ouverte qui t'a permi d'evoluer? Non mais tu blagues la ! Give me a break!
Et toi ma cherie, tu es une hypocrite, as is the rest of your family. If France is so bad, why don't you all go home to wherever you came from that was so great and renounce your citizenship? France was wonderful to me, and I suspect our backgrounds aren't so different (although you probably did not put your education to good use because you can't spell). One thing I can't stand is people who move to another country and then spend all their time sh******* on it. Ah yes, their culture is too permissive, their women are sluts, they have the gall of asking me to show my face for a picture ID...
If it's so bad to be Arab in France, why are there such thriving but moderate Arab communities there? Why do Saudi Arabian families own so many of the expensive houses in Paris, where they can come and party far from the stifling restrictions back home?
Hypocrits.
My dear, go and learn the definition of "hypocrite". First, I do not carry a French passport (by choice) though I can legally get one and I do not reside in France. My grandmother descends from a long line of French women, and my grandparents fought the war alongside their French brothers/sisters, so yeah liberte, egalite, fraternite? We fought for that. I do not identify as French though it's part of my heritage. Part of my family that lives there are French, not immigrants, so yeah, your comment about "go back where you're from" is laughable coming from a middle eastern man who immigrated to France as you described yourself. And , no I am sure that you and are not of the same background, nor of a close background. Now if your idea of French immigrants thriving is that Saudi immigrants own expensive houses in Paris, lol then this discussion is moot. You obviously don't understand the disparity, discrimination, racism that is blatant in France, so much so that there are many articles on the topic, google it. Self-imposed ignorance is not cute. Now as far as my spelling , you will have to bear with me, since I'm typing from my phone, and I don't think any of my forum comments would ever make it to a Law review paper, really, it is not that serious!
You keep skirting the points I'm making. To conclude:
Your ancestors fought for liberte, egalite, fraternite, but you also say that just because you can say something that others might find distasteful "filth" doesn't mean you should say it. Evidently, the idea of "liberte" somehow got completely lost somewhere in your journey. A free, open, democratic society does not kowtow to the kind of intimidation that religious fervor wishes to impose.
And regarding the fact that there are thriving Arab communities in France, it's absolutely relevant. You seem to be mistaking inherent racism with the kind of revulsion people often feel towards people who are poor, dependent and frequently unwilling to assimilate. Was I targeted with racist comments when I lived in France? Sure, once in a blue moon. I occasionally get them here too. So? The good things that came to me as a result of living in an open, democratic country far, far exceeded the disadvantages. Oh and by the way, I'm a woman, not a man.
With regards to the French being so racist, please...I grew up in contact with a lot of Middle Eastern Muslims. I witnessed firsthand the importance they attach to light skin color among their own. The nasty comments made about people behind their backs, even within families, to the effect that so and so is ugly because he/she is "dark". Anyone who's spent an iota of time in these countries can testify as to how socially stratified they are based on skin color, not to mention the kind of misery they inflict on Bangladeshi or Indian workers in their midst. You can pull this kind of white guilt crap with a lot of Western readers on DCUM, but not with me.
That said, it's true that today's massacre was a gift of astounding proportions to the Front National.
And as far as ignorance is concerned, yours is on display when you lecture about French colonialism, which for all its faults, was always inherently assimilationist. I still remember my third grade teacher almost 40 years ago telling us we were going to learn a poem "by a great French poet, Leopold Sedar Senghor." But I realize it's always easier to pose as a victim.
The bottom line though, is that your notion that you should refrain from saying offensive things is undemocratic and blames the victims. And it's a slippery slope from there to getting people killed. Others seem to agree:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders
Oh I am very much aware of the colorism and racism that exist in the Muslim community, I will give you that and I am very much against that as well. If we were discussing racism in the muslim community, I will be one of the first joining you on the debate, but the point you raised was that France was this so called paradise of Muslims where they are openly welcome and can practice their religion the way they see fit and buy luxurious mansions next to Les Champs Elysees. Nicolas Sarkozy instituted the French law that banned the niqab ( face veil) in public that has been in place in France since 2010 making France the First European country to have a such a law in place in modern times. So, talking about freedom of expression? How about the freedom of the niqabi women to wear their veils when they want/choose to wear it? Isn't it hypocritical to call for freedom of expression for newspapers to publish whatever they want but then turn around and make it illegal for a certain portion of the population to dress how they see fit?
In 2010, France banned the wearing of niqabs and burqas and other clothing that conceal one’s face in public places. The lawfollowed a resolution of the National Assembly, which considered that the wearing of the full veil in public is “incompatible with the values of the [French] Republic”. The lawmakers saw the covering of the face as contrary to the “ideal of fraternity” and the “minimum requirement of civility” that is “necessary for social interaction”. A violation of the law is punishable by a fine, at the rate applying to second-class petty offences up to 150 euros, and the obligation to follow a citizenship course.
Source: http://cjicl.org.uk/2014/07/21/echr-chamber-judgment-case-s-s-v-france-banning-burqas-niqabs-legal/
Seriously? Remember the riots in the muslim communities in France not too long ago because they felt stigmatized? France has always have a REAL problem with its Muslim population.. There is a reason why the extreme right-wing National Front is so popular in France.
In the early 1980s, an extreme right-wing movement called the National Front, led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, rose to prominence on a nativist platform that played on colonial stereotypes of Arabs as lazy, shifty, and recalcitrant. The National Front advocated limiting when and how foreign residents could get French citizenship, and although its calls were opposed by a slew of largely secular, generally left-leaning groups, anti-immigrant sentiments took on a new respectability. In the 1960s and 1970s, immigrants had generally been thought of as workers. By the mid-1980s, they were considered Arabs. From there it was only a small step before they were seen as Muslims first and foremost.
According to Vincent Geisser, of the government think tank Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Islamophobia in France, unlike elsewhere in Europe, is largely an intellectual phenomenon driven by the elites, and it stems less from insecurity than from racialist ideology. This may explain why, although under no particular pressure, President Jacques Chirac decided in 2003 to appoint a commission to revisit the headscarf issue. The move sparked a strident public debate that ended with the passage of a law in 2004 banning students from wearing any signs that "conspicuously" reveal religious affiliation. Supporters justified the measure in the name of laïcité, gender equality, and the sanctity of public schools, pointing out that the law also prohibited yarmulkes and large crucifixes. But critics of the ban argued that it was based on an interpretation of laïcité that was neither philosophically necessary nor historically justified. And many Muslims saw it as a gratuitous restriction tailored specifically to them. It also seemed to bear out the bleak conclusion of immigration expert Patrick Weil, who has noted that "when faced with cultural diversity, [the French Republic] tends first to forget, or even violate, its own principles, and then to apply them in the worst conditions."
Source: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61919/stéphanie-giry/france-and-its-muslims
The state of Islam and Muslims in France is beyond the scope of this thread but one can not deny that historically, French political leaders have played a role in stigmatizing the Muslim community and supporting laws that widen the gap, but that's for another discussion. Interesting read on the topic: http://www.ecmi.de/fileadmin/downloads/publications/JEMIE/2014/Fellag.pdf
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Please please please, this has nothing to do with Islam. Please do not leap to any assumptions that this has to do with Islam.
Religion is a tool that can be used how its followers choose to use it. So while this incident may not have anything to do with your interpretation of Islam, or the interpretation of most, it is absolutely a reflection of the perpetrators' view of Islam.
I mean think of how ironic it is. The terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo, because they depicted characterizations of the prophet Muhammad. Characterizations of prophet Muhammad are frowned upon, because it's mean to discourage idolatry (like how Muslims believe falsely led to idolatry of the prophet Jesus).
Yet... these terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo to "avenge" prophet Muhammad.
I don't consider myself Muslim, but I was raised in the faith. And absolutely disgusted with the idolatry of Muhammad. How people put Hadith & Sunna on the same degree as the Quran. That seemed so profoundly un-Islamic to me. Muhammad was a prophet, but a human being. A mortal. Homo sapien flesh. Too many Muslims place way, way, way too much emphasis on Muhammad, and don't realize just how much they worship Muhammad. They idolize him - they're doing what the whole non-depiction of Muhammad was meant to avoid. It's totally backfired.
I believe you responded to a troll, but your post is first rate. Quite the irony you point out.
My troll-dar is off, but thanks.
Truthfully, a big part of why I left the faith (eventually religion altogether), was frustration with the extreme obsession with Muhammad. It's totally out of control in much of the Muslim world. I remember watching a video about Muhammad's life as a kid in Sunday School (in the US), where Muhammad's face was basically a blurry blob. Even as a kid the taboo weirded me out and seemed so ironic. Why don't Muslims get upset over depictions of Jesus? Moses? Adam? Or any other prophet? Too many Muslims put Muhammad on a pedestal that's different from the rest. He may be the final prophet, but as a mortal human being, he doesn't need extra special treatment or to be handled with kid gloves.
I think the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are super distasteful and obnoxious, but obviously not worthy of violence. But I think practicing Muslims need to start depicting Muhammad. Nothing fancy, but Muhammad taking a walk. Playing with his kids. Eating breakfast. Drinking tea. Show images of Muhammad doing ordinary, mundane things, and break down the taboo. The (informal) "ban" on imagery of Muhammad is doing precisely the opposite of what it was intended to do.
You can leave Islam for whatever reason you seem fit, but to say that Muslims worship Prophet Muhammad saw is simply not true. Yes, there are some overzealous Muslims out there but you and I both know that worshipping people, prophets, saints, ect is contradictory and opposite to the teachings of the religion. Yes, Muslims do have a great love for the Prophet saw , yes some actually love him more that they love their parents, their children, their life, but I have never seen a Muslim worshipping the man. Nouman Ali Khan did a lecture about the other point you raised about why Muslims don't speak up when other prophets are made fun, because really depictions of all prophets are frown upon in Islam . He said :
"People of other religion ask- why are you Muslim so crazy? When people make fun of Jesus on Fox TV even though they claim to love Jesus, and they also show ‘Family Guy’ on Jesus; when they make fun of Jesus on TV, Christians don’t go crazy! People make fun of Moses all the time, Jews don’t go crazy! People make fun of Hindus and that certainly does happen, Hindus don’t go crazy! What is with you Muslims, can’t say anything to you people. Don’t you understand the concept of freedom of speech? Why do you people go crazy? And our usual response and you might think this was given being my response in this khutba is that- You don’t know what love is, you don’t know. You think you love Jesus, but we love Muhammad saw way way way more, and that’s why we go that crazy. But that is not my response today. My first response when that question is asked to me is that- how come I don’t get angry when Isaa (Alaihiwa sallam) is made fun of? How come I don’t get angry when Musa (Alaihiwa sallam) made fun of? Musa (Alaihi wa sallam) is The most mentioned messenger of Allah in The Quran. Muhammad is mentioned four times and Ahmad is mentioned once. That is the messenger of Allah sawmentioned by name in the Quran. Musa (Alaihissalam) is mentioned seventy plus times in the Quran. When Musa Alaihissalam is poked fun at, and he is poked fun at a lot, A Lot. When Jesus is made fun of, he is made fun of a lot. Where is my anger? ‘Oh that’s your problem.’ It’s their problem, that’s not my problem. So first of all, there is something even problematic about the way we emotionally respond. The things that we find offensive, there is something already problematic. But you could say- no no no, but Allah gave a special honor to Muhammad Rasulullah ?. I agree, yes, Allah did give the messenger ? a special honor. But it is the same Allah, who says-Glory to thy Lord, the Lord of Honour and Power! (He is free) from what they ascribe (to Him)! And Peace on the messengers! (sura as saffat : 180-181)"
But I do agree with you that killing cartoonists is just plain crazy. From what I am learning about the attackers, at least one of them has done time in the French prisons and was radicalized while there. He is described as a delinquent who was recruiting "jihadists" to go fight in Syria. I wonder, if these reports are true, how was he able to perpetrate this, especially with the weapons used given that it is not as easy to get these types of guns in France like it is in the US.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Here are hideous caricatures from three major religions: http://p8.storage.canalblog.com/80/67/177230/63901176.jpg
Here's a fat pope, complete with double chins (the title says "The French are as stupid as the blacks"): http://www.une-autre-histoire.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Charlie-Hebdo.jpg
Here's France's unknown soldier being sodomized by some really ugly french military dude: http://www.le-livre.fr/photos/ROD/ROD0070635.jpg
Honestly, some of their cartoons are offensive. Satire can and is hurtful sometimes. I will say it again, just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should say it! Should you get killed for it? No
Of course I agree that just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should say it. But I'm wondering why you feel the need to say that on a day when those people were killed for saying the thing you find offensive. Maybe just because you have the right to say that doesn't mean you should say it.
It is not so much that I felt the need it to say it but more so because of the current state of world affairs. We always wonder why these things happen, why Muslims hate the West ? why is the gap widening between East and West? Ect. These are very complex conversations to be had and I don't think they should be had with a tunnel vision, ignoring the complex realities surrounding them. Again, I'm not condoning what happened today. What is more insulting to the Prophet saw than satirical cartoons are those who kill innocent people in his name.
Anonymous wrote:Here are hideous caricatures from three major religions: http://p8.storage.canalblog.com/80/67/177230/63901176.jpg
Here's a fat pope, complete with double chins (the title says "The French are as stupid as the blacks"): http://www.une-autre-histoire.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Charlie-Hebdo.jpg
Here's France's unknown soldier being sodomized by some really ugly french military dude: http://www.le-livre.fr/photos/ROD/ROD0070635.jpg
Honestly, some of their cartoons are offensive. Satire can and is hurtful sometimes. I will say it again, just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should say it! Should you get killed for it? No
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:While some of the cartoons may be viewed as distasteful, others who didn't view it in that light should be allowed their freedoms of preference. I personally feel strongly about that. Anything else is tantamount to book burning or prevention of anyone to reading a book or any kind.Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.
However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.
And I agree with you that they shouldn't be killed for it. Btw what I posted was in the words of my friend, not mine. I personally think some of their cartoons were distasteful and many angered lots of folks. Should they be killed for it? Of course not!
I agree with you that people have the right to publish whatever they want, say whatever they want, ect but such rights should also come with good judgment. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should, sometimes it just makes you look like an a**. If we want to live in a better world, we all have to make a conscious effort to be aware of each others sensibilities, beliefs, rights, wrongs, ect.
Muslima, while I mostly agreed with your posts so far, I strongly desagree with this. you seem to imply that the journalists should have somehow censored themselves, and did something wrong what they published what you defined before as "filth" (I strongly desagree with your judgemnt on CH's work also). but this is the heart of freedom of speech and of expression, which apparently is lost on some people. the coward murders of 12 people took place in France this morning because some terrorists decided to impose with violence they twisted values and points of view on others, not because the victims chose to write satirical cartoons and did not respect their murders sensibilities and beliefs. if we all want to live in a better world, we should most of all stop killing people because they say something we don't like.
Again, I did not say they published filth. If you read my following post, I indicated that that was from my friend. I'm responding from my phone and can't always use quotations appropriately but those were my friend'words as indicated in the paragraph. As for me personally, I think some of their cartoons were distasteful and I think they have a right to publish whatever they want , just like you and I do. What I mean by my judgment comment is, we live in a world full of hate already, what does it say about anyone to go to great lengths mocking people's beliefs, especially in the current state of wield affairs? ( not just Islam). Satire can exist without getting to that level. If I were to create a newspaper and call it Retard for the sake of satire and publish pictures of disabled kids, and make fun of their disabilities , what would that make me? Is this really the legacy we want? Now I will repeat it again, that doesn't justify their killings.
I agree with this " Now, I think there's a critical difference between solidarity with the journalists who were attacked, refusing to concede anything to the idea that journalists are somehow 'legitimate targets', and solidarity with what is frankly a racist publication. I will not waste time arguing over this point here: I simply take it as read that - irrespective of whatever else it does, and whatever valid comment it makes - the way in which that publication represents Islam is racist." Full article here : http://www.leninology.co.uk/2015/01/charlie-hebdo.html?m=1
Muslima, there is really a fundamental difference between us. I would not only express solidarity to a journalists, but also to a "racist publication" in an event like this. I also find these kinds of distinctions, hours after a massacre with the bodies still there, quite distasteful.
BTW, I strongly desagree that CH is a racist publication and that represent Islam in a racist way. CH is a satirical magazine that pokes fun at everything and everybody, including politicians in France of all types and colors, including religions. more than Islam, the cartoons I saw were poking fun at idiots like the ones who most likely are responsible for the attack, people who use Islam to justify their ideology of violence .
And that is okay, we can agree to disagree. I do not follow CH and only saw the few cartoons that are circulating right now and I find those distasteful. Just because it is satire, doesn't mean it isn't offensive!
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.
However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.
This. I'm of Middle Eastern origin and one of my grandmothers was a devout Muslim ( although fortunately the rest of the family freed itself from the yoke of religion altogether). I'm also a dual French-U.S. Citizen and I'm horrified and heartbroken about this massacre.
Charlie Hebdo is a satirical publication and it pokes fun at everyone, no matter how mightly or low, whether from the right or the left, and no matter their religion. It embodies the very principles at the heart of an open and democratic society, and this is nothing more than another attempt to destroy that freedom of speech.
So Muslima, don't come here spouting any of your propaganda about how Islam is a religion of compassion. All religions are selectively compassionate towards some tiny subset of humanity and ruthlessly violent towards the rest, and Islam isn't faring too well right now. Not since the Protestant reformation has a religion killed so many of its own, let alone others, in the name of God.
I was born in the Middle East but France gave me everything that has allowed me to get where I am today: a wonderful, secular, rigorous education (to a female, no less!), welcoming and loving friends without a trace of prejudice in their heart... I could go on but I think I'll start crying.
If you're worried about the Front National, good luck. That was one fine way of ingratiating Muslims to the hearts of the average French citizen.
You have got to be kidding me. Liberte, egalite, fraternite? Well my fellow french woman, France is one of the most intolerant countries in Europe, and you can look no further than the relationship between France and its colonies. Carrying a french passport won't make me say otherwise. Just 2 years ago, repirts still showed this, France is the most racist western European country , 1 in 3 French openly states they are racist. Lepen anyone? I have spent many years in France and half of my family still lives there. There are 3 things you do not want to be in France: Arab, Black or Muslim. Va demander os jeunes des cites relegues ds les HLM ce kils pensent de ton idee d'education a la francaise, la France ouverte qui t'a permi d'evoluer? Non mais tu blagues la ! Give me a break!
Et toi ma cherie, tu es une hypocrite, as is the rest of your family. If France is so bad, why don't you all go home to wherever you came from that was so great and renounce your citizenship? France was wonderful to me, and I suspect our backgrounds aren't so different (although you probably did not put your education to good use because you can't spell). One thing I can't stand is people who move to another country and then spend all their time sh******* on it. Ah yes, their culture is too permissive, their women are sluts, they have the gall of asking me to show my face for a picture ID...
If it's so bad to be Arab in France, why are there such thriving but moderate Arab communities there? Why do Saudi Arabian families own so many of the expensive houses in Paris, where they can come and party far from the stifling restrictions back home?
Hypocrits.
My dear, go and learn the definition of "hypocrite". First, I do not carry a French passport (by choice) though I can legally get one and I do not reside in France. My grandmother descends from a long line of French women, and my grandparents fought the war alongside their French brothers/sisters, so yeah liberte, egalite, fraternite? We fought for that. I do not identify as French though it's part of my heritage. Part of my family that lives there are French, not immigrants, so yeah, your comment about "go back where you're from" is laughable coming from a middle eastern man who immigrated to France as you described yourself. And , no I am sure that you and are not of the same background, nor of a close background. Now if your idea of French immigrants thriving is that Saudi immigrants own expensive houses in Paris, lol then this discussion is moot. You obviously don't understand the disparity, discrimination, racism that is blatant in France, so much so that there are many articles on the topic, google it. Self-imposed ignorance is not cute. Now as far as my spelling , you will have to bear with me, since I'm typing from my phone, and I don't think any of my forum comments would ever make it to a Law review paper, really, it is not that serious!
Anonymous wrote:You're right. There could be other underlying reasons for the execution in addition to the editorial content. We just have to wait and see what's uncovered if anything else.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think any level -headed Muslim is rejoicing at what happened today. Murdering someone is always wrong regardless of the motives, so don't distort my words. However, unless we start looking at the root causes, this will never get resolved
I think it's in poor taste after an attack like this to blame the cartoonists/cartoons, if that's what you mean by "root causes." Remember, according to news reports, this magazine was an equal opportunity satirist. The root cause lies with the extremists who think this attack is praiseworthy.
"Root causes" seems to refer to either the cartoons or possibly the existance of Israel on "Muslim land." Beyond those root causes, UBL demanded expulsion of all infidels from Muslim lands in order to protect the caliphate.
I was referring to the root causes of extremism/terrorism, not this particular incident.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:While some of the cartoons may be viewed as distasteful, others who didn't view it in that light should be allowed their freedoms of preference. I personally feel strongly about that. Anything else is tantamount to book burning or prevention of anyone to reading a book or any kind.Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.
However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.
And I agree with you that they shouldn't be killed for it. Btw what I posted was in the words of my friend, not mine. I personally think some of their cartoons were distasteful and many angered lots of folks. Should they be killed for it? Of course not!
I agree with you that people have the right to publish whatever they want, say whatever they want, ect but such rights should also come with good judgment. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should, sometimes it just makes you look like an a**. If we want to live in a better world, we all have to make a conscious effort to be aware of each others sensibilities, beliefs, rights, wrongs, ect.
Muslima, while I mostly agreed with your posts so far, I strongly desagree with this. you seem to imply that the journalists should have somehow censored themselves, and did something wrong what they published what you defined before as "filth" (I strongly desagree with your judgemnt on CH's work also). but this is the heart of freedom of speech and of expression, which apparently is lost on some people. the coward murders of 12 people took place in France this morning because some terrorists decided to impose with violence they twisted values and points of view on others, not because the victims chose to write satirical cartoons and did not respect their murders sensibilities and beliefs. if we all want to live in a better world, we should most of all stop killing people because they say something we don't like.
Again, I did not say they published filth. If you read my following post, I indicated that that was from my friend. I'm responding from my phone and can't always use quotations appropriately but those were my friend'words as indicated in the paragraph. As for me personally, I think some of their cartoons were distasteful and I think they have a right to publish whatever they want , just like you and I do. What I mean by my judgment comment is, we live in a world full of hate already, what does it say about anyone to go to great lengths mocking people's beliefs, especially in the current state of wield affairs? ( not just Islam). Satire can exist without getting to that level. If I were to create a newspaper and call it Retard for the sake of satire and publish pictures of disabled kids, and make fun of their disabilities , what would that make me? Is this really the legacy we want? Now I will repeat it again, that doesn't justify their killings.
I agree with this " Now, I think there's a critical difference between solidarity with the journalists who were attacked, refusing to concede anything to the idea that journalists are somehow 'legitimate targets', and solidarity with what is frankly a racist publication. I will not waste time arguing over this point here: I simply take it as read that - irrespective of whatever else it does, and whatever valid comment it makes - the way in which that publication represents Islam is racist." Full article here : http://www.leninology.co.uk/2015/01/charlie-hebdo.html?m=1
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.
However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.
This. I'm of Middle Eastern origin and one of my grandmothers was a devout Muslim ( although fortunately the rest of the family freed itself from the yoke of religion altogether). I'm also a dual French-U.S. Citizen and I'm horrified and heartbroken about this massacre.
Charlie Hebdo is a satirical publication and it pokes fun at everyone, no matter how mightly or low, whether from the right or the left, and no matter their religion. It embodies the very principles at the heart of an open and democratic society, and this is nothing more than another attempt to destroy that freedom of speech.
So Muslima, don't come here spouting any of your propaganda about how Islam is a religion of compassion. All religions are selectively compassionate towards some tiny subset of humanity and ruthlessly violent towards the rest, and Islam isn't faring too well right now. Not since the Protestant reformation has a religion killed so many of its own, let alone others, in the name of God.
I was born in the Middle East but France gave me everything that has allowed me to get where I am today: a wonderful, secular, rigorous education (to a female, no less!), welcoming and loving friends without a trace of prejudice in their heart... I could go on but I think I'll start crying.
If you're worried about the Front National, good luck. That was one fine way of ingratiating Muslims to the hearts of the average French citizen.
You have got to be kidding me. Liberte, egalite, fraternite? Well my fellow french woman, France is one of the most intolerant countries in Europe, and you can look no further than the relationship between France and its colonies. Carrying a french passport won't make me say otherwise. Just 2 years ago, repirts still showed this, France is the most racist western European country , 1 in 3 French openly states they are racist. Lepen anyone? I have spent many years in France and half of my family still lives there. There are 3 things you do not want to be in France: Arab, Black or Muslim. Va demander os jeunes des cites relegues ds les HLM ce kils pensent de ton idee d'education a la francaise, la France ouverte qui t'a permi d'evoluer? Non mais tu blagues la ! Give me a break!
Anonymous wrote:And if we want to live in a better world, we all have to make a conscious effort to call out a wrong when we see it....and call it out loudly and clearly. Regardless of anyone's feelings for Charlie Hebdo and whether they think it is filth or trash, the reason for the destruction of those lives should be condemned in the loudest and clearest voice without exception of whether one thinks it's trash or in bad taste.Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:While some of the cartoons may be viewed as distasteful, others who didn't view it in that light should be allowed their freedoms of preference. I personally feel strongly about that. Anything else is tantamount to book burning or prevention of anyone to reading a book or any kind.Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.
However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.
And I agree with you that they shouldn't be killed for it. Btw what I posted was in the words of my friend, not mine. I personally think some of their cartoons were distasteful and many angered lots of folks. Should they be killed for it? Of course not!
I agree with you that people have the right to publish whatever they want, say whatever they want, ect but such rights should also come with good judgment. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should, sometimes it just makes you look like an a**. If we want to live in a better world, we all have to make a conscious effort to be aware of each others sensibilities, beliefs, rights, wrongs, ect.
Filth should not equal execution and should be condemned as such regardless whether it makes you like an ass or raises an eyebrow to those who disagree.
I don't think any level -headed Muslim is rejoicing at what happened today. Murdering someone is always wrong regardless of the motives, so don't distort my words. However, unless we start looking at the root causes, this will never get resolved
Anonymous wrote:While some of the cartoons may be viewed as distasteful, others who didn't view it in that light should be allowed their freedoms of preference. I personally feel strongly about that. Anything else is tantamount to book burning or prevention of anyone to reading a book or any kind.Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.
However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.
And I agree with you that they shouldn't be killed for it. Btw what I posted was in the words of my friend, not mine. I personally think some of their cartoons were distasteful and many angered lots of folks. Should they be killed for it? Of course not!
I agree with you that people have the right to publish whatever they want, say whatever they want, ect but such rights should also come with good judgment. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should, sometimes it just makes you look like an a**. If we want to live in a better world, we all have to make a conscious effort to be aware of each others sensibilities, beliefs, rights, wrongs, ect.
Anonymous wrote:
Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. Is it just me, or is this statement inconsistent?
Muslima--could you respond to the bolded?
Pretty straightforward! Whenever perpetrators are Muslims, everyone awaits for every single Muslim to come knocking at their door with baked cupcakes apologizing for whatever action was committed in the name of Islam. I don't think Muslims who do not recognize/applaud/agree with these attacks have to continuously be held at such a standard when said standard is not applied to anybody else!
Anonymous wrote:There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.
However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.
And I agree with you that they shouldn't be killed for it. Btw what I posted was in the words of my friend, not mine. I personally think some of their cartoons were distasteful and many angered lots of folks. Should they be killed for it? Of course not!