Reply to terrorist attack in Paris

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "terrorist attack in Paris "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Muslima][quote=Anonymous][quote=Muslima][quote=Anonymous][quote=Muslima][quote=Anonymous][quote=Muslima][quote=Anonymous][b]The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad[/b]. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion? [/quote]

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....[/quote]

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands. [/quote]

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

[quote]There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”[/quote]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion[/quote]

Oh so basically, it doesn't even say in the holy book that depictions are forbidden. The cartoonists died because a bunch of reactionary Imams have been stoking anger and hatred in an entire population of desperate dimwits on the basis of personal opinion. Clergy--you can always count on them to get people killed to further their personal agenda.[/quote]

You are missing the point if you think the cartoonist died because of imams rulings or because of the cartoons. There are lots of underlying issues that are being ignore as if these events happened in a vacuum.

[quote]
Ostensibly, the horrific attack against Charlie Hebdo in Paris was because of the publication’s satirical images of the Prophet Muhammad.
But to view the assault as simply about images of Muhammad is to accept a long-standing narrative about Muslim sensitivity to portrayals of Muhammad, which plays into conceptions of Muslims as superstitious savages.Just as important, arguing that this attack is about free speech misses what may be the attackers’ true motivation, which is to wreak havoc and destruction.

Regarding images: Muhammad is a powerful symbol for Muslims. The Quran calls him a “beautiful role model,” and he is considered to be the most perfect Muslim.

Charlie Hebdo has a right to publish whatever it wants. At the same time, the material was racist. It did not matter if the images were going after Muslims, blacks or Jews; it was always about reinforcing racial and religious hierarchies. [b]In a country where women’s headgear is legislated, religious expression is curtailed and a former prime minister calls minorities “scum,” what Hebdo does seems like bullying[/b].
In no way is there any justification for violence against the paper. However, this is a community that sees itself as besieged. What the attackers are attempting to do is capitalize on that feeling. They provided a sense of revenge and power.
It would not be surprising to find out that they hope to create an overreaction against Muslims, both at official and popular levels. This type of response would allow the extremists to create a larger pool for recruiting members and drive the larger Muslim community to feeling even more alienated.[/quote]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/why-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-is-not-about-images-or-free-speech-commentary/2015/01/08/3b058c10-9778-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html[/quote]

mass murder has nothing to do with "underlying issues". It is mass murder. that's it. there is no justification. do you understand that?[/quote]

Of course there is no justification, but there is an explanation ~[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics