Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[ECGadget]

2 more hostages taken in the south of france in a jewellery shop

I believe that is actually "just" a robbery...

 

[Crumpet]

Its great this whole thing is finally over, as for those unfortunately killed - R.I.P.
Its a shame that we must get straight to pondering over what and where the next extremist attack will be.

My opinion on Islam has completely changed after this whole thing.

 

[Joel]

Its great this whole thing is finally over, as for those unfortunately killed - R.I.P.
Its a shame that we must get straight to pondering over what and where the next extremist attack will be.

My opinion on Islam has completely changed after this whole thing.

2 people have completely changed your opinion on a faith with nearly 2 billion followers?

 

[andrea]

 

[ECGadget]

Its great this whole thing is finally over, as for those unfortunately killed - R.I.P.
Its a shame that we must get straight to pondering over what and where the next extremist attack will be.

My opinion on Islam has completely changed after this whole thing.

Please search my previous posts regarding this matter. Do not let 2 people who break the fundementals of the religion in question change your view on Islam

 

[ultimate]

The two bothers had actually no hostage inside warehouse
The employe was hidden inside in a carboard box
He informed french special forces through phone

Its great this whole thing is finally over, as for those unfortunately killed - R.I.P.
Its a shame that we must get straight to pondering over what and where the next extremist attack will be.

My opinion on Islam has completely changed after this whole thing.

Do not make amalgam about Islam
I am not muslim either but there are muslims and fanatics, radicals and extreme dangerous criminals
Do not be confused with that

According a journalist from BFMTV who had one of two brother on call, Cherif Kouachi considers himself as being from Al Qaida Yemen and he justified his acts against Charlie Hebdo to revenge prophet Mahomet

 

[Moglet]

2 people have completely changed your opinion on a faith with nearly 2 billion followers?

You'd be surprised how many other people will have adopted the same attitude after the latest attacks. Just reading the replies to stories about it on Facebook I see a worrying amount of mentions of "blow up all the mosques" and "shoot them all".

That's completely the wrong attitude to have about it, of course, but things like this will happen and so will so called 'revenge attacks' on mosques despite them having nothing to do with terrorism.

 

[Omnis]

Alright, here we go:

In the presence of a FULL khalifate there can be a death penalty applied for one who leaves the fold of Islam without an external influence (i.e. propaganda etc). The death penalty can ONLY apply IF and ONLY IF the person announces it publically. It does not apply to a woman, or a child etc. In the case of the penalty it can ONLY be applied on a case by case basis by a full ruling body. Because of that it makes it very rare for it to happen and thus pretty much does not apply. Furthermore there is NO full khalifate on Earth, therefore the law cannot be upheld either. If I recall there has only been once incident of a death penalty being warranted and that was for Salman Rushdie.
So, whilst you are right in the fact that the death penalty IS there, there is not enough backing on the penalty for it to even be applied in todays day and age. The same way there is no backing for anyone changing religion and having suffer a death penalty (which used to apply to Christians and Jews as well). Now in the case of Mr Rushdie, the only reason I can think that the death penalty applied was because all of the ruling bodies on Earth unanimously agreed and he did FAR more than just leave a religion.

This is the best that I can explain with my limited knowledge. I hope it helps? @kennylmao

Do you understand how silly that is? That is the central problem with Islam. Is it by God's will that a man must die? Because you can't arrive at a death penalty within the framework of reason.

If you'd like to explain further, please see the lecture at Regensburg, where Pope Benedict XVI spoke for all of Western Civilization. Until the muslim world can respond to it, I fear the rest of us will always have to deal with violence under the banner of radical islam. Let me quote Fr. Barron, whose writings first opened my eyes to what I consider the problem here...

Fr. Barron, Word On Fire

It is easy enough to condemn [islamic violence] as deeply inhumane, but I would like to press the critique a bit further[...]

[...]To use the threat of force to compel someone to change his religious beliefs—which we are regularly seeing in the Middle East—is not only criminal but wicked.

It is also deeply irrational—a point made by Pope Benedict XVI in his address at the University of Regensburg in September of 2006. In that controversial speech, Pope Benedict drew attention to a little-known dialogue between the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Muslim interlocutor. The Emperor pointed out that the idea of spreading the faith through violent conquest, which is recommended in the Qur’an, is supremely irrational, and the reasons he gives anticipate John Paul II by six centuries. Faith is a function, not of the body, but of the soul, and therefore coercion through bodily persecution cannot even in principle awaken authentic faith. One must, instead, be skilled in arguments that would appeal to the mind: “to convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.” In a word, the idea of the holy war is not syn logon (according to the word or reason). And here is the decisive point: what is unreasonable is out of step with God’s own nature, since God, on the Christian reading, is identified with Logos: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

However, in Muslim teaching, Allah’s nature is so transcendent that it goes beyond any and all categories, including that of reason. Pope Benedict cites the noted French Islamic scholar R. Arnaldez, who points out that Allah is not even bound by his own word, so that if he so chose, he could recommend idolatry as morally praiseworthy. This elevation of the divine will over the divine mind, called “voluntarism” in the West, is, for Benedict, the source of enormous confusion and mischief. Most notably and dangerously, it opens the door to the idea of divinely sanctioned violence. Now I fully realize that many Christians over the centuries have done terrible things in the name of God and that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful and non-violent. But I think it is clear that when Christians act in such a way, they are unequivocally at odds with their own conception of God. Is the same true of Muslims? I am still waiting for a compelling answer from the Muslim camp to the question posed eight years ago by Pope Benedict. At the time, of course, Islamist radicals responded by killing a number of innocent Christians – certainly a curious way of refuting the notion that divinely sanctioned violence is irrational!

bold emphasis mine, and edited for context in [brackets].

 

[Vic Reign93]

You'd be surprised how many other people will have adopted the same attitude after the latest attacks. Just reading the replies to stories about it on Facebook I see a worrying amount of mentions of "blow up all the mosques" and "shoot them all".

That's completely the wrong attitude to have about it, of course, but things like this will happen and so will so called 'revenge attacks' on mosques despite them having nothing to do with terrorism.

And those 'revenge attacks' will have the possible knock on effect of been used as 'examples of oppression' to other extremists and borderline extremists and possibly motivate them to committing more atrocities, at which point we'll be back to square one with the 'revenge attacks'.

That's how I see it going and I can't imagine it being easy to try and break that cycle.

 

[Mike Rotch]

I am glad the perpetrators where tracked, found and brought to task. That they chose to go out like cowards is beyond police or special forces control, but I am thankful they didn't disappear into thin air.

So sad that more innocent hostages got caught up in this. My thoughts to all the innocent victims in this, including the law enforcement who lost their lives.

 

[ECGadget]

Do you understand how silly that is? That is the central problem with Islam. Is it by God's will that a man must die? Because you can't arrive at a death penalty within the framework of reason.
If you'd like to explain further, please see the lecture at Regensburg, where Pope Benedict XVI spoke for all of Western Civilization. Until the muslim world can respond to it, I fear the rest of us will always have to deal with violence under the banner of radical islam. Let me quote Fr. Barron, whose writings first opened my eyes to what I consider the problem here...
Fr. Barron, Word On Fire
bold emphasis mine, and edited for context in [brackets].

I am afraid my own knowledge limits me from explaining further, but perhaps sometime in the future when I do more research I may have an answer for you. All I can say right now is that IF Islam was build to kill people in that way, do you not think that the billion odd Muslim population would have all been storming around killing?

One thing I will give you though is that yes, there is bound to be more violence under the banner of "radical Islam". Because people do not understand Islam. To understand Islam you need to study it for years. That is why you and I, nor the pope can truely say what Islam means. Spreading Islam through violence? Gosh no. Yes it says that in the Quraan, but bring it all in context of what that particular passage was revealed please. It may have referred to one specific incident. The Quraan is a guide book yes. BUT it also clearly says that "Through this book you can be guided, or misguided". That is why Muslims turn to the ways of the Prophet for clarfication. That is why they have scholars who do nothing but study text after text to see if Islam is being interpreted correctly day in, day out. Now if Muhammad had said "Go unto the earth and spread the word of Islam through the sword" Then yes, I would have not a single arguement and I would completely be agreeing with you. BUT I know that Muhammad said "To spread Islam through kindness and good character is better than to lift the sword", or something akin to that. It is meant to be through the ACTIONS of a Muslim that people are invited to Islam or coexist alongside Islam. Doesn't that sound a little similar to the popular saying that has been through the years, the Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword? Fitting for this current situation.
Will I say that there have NOT been bloody chapters in Islams history? Of course not. But do I say that these terrorist attacks are an possible way of accepting Islam? Not at all. Something about Islamic Law and also about war.

In war, we can all agree that when someone is killed they are a causulty of war, not been murdered, right?
Well in this case here it was clearly the murder of 17 people if my count is right. Yes, ONE of those 17 did offend Islam and one could argue that perhaps he had it coming. But if he had it coming, surely all of the TOP ranking scholars (Muftis I believe) would have said, "Go kill such and such for this". Did they do that? No. Therefore the killing was unjustified in every which way.
Murder in Islam is forbidden. Within the juristiction of Shariah there are specific rules etc, but in an area where these laws do not apply there is no justification to kill someone (except maybe high treason but I know that has been changed too). Allow me to quote a little of the Quraan here. The Quraan states that if someone kills someone else it is as though he has killed all of mankind. And who saves a life it is as though he has saved all of mankind. Note how it does not say save/kill a Muslim. It just says save someone. Terrorism IS murder and therefore is NOT Islam.

Now we can argue about how laws later in the Quraan can supersede laws previously right? But then if they did, the prophet would have made clear to the Muslims that these laws no longer apply permanently right? Some laws came in for a very short period of time, and yes some did say that it is time to take up the sword. But they did not stand for a long time, otherwise every single place a muslim went would have been a bloody battle. And if that was true then I would be standing firmly against Islam, right?

Next up we can talk about Terrorism itself, known in Arabic as what I believe is "hirabah". Hirabah is forbidden in Islam. But what can we define as Hirabah? Well, it can be anything from disturbing peace in the streets and making them unsafe to travel, to killing people without cause to corruption and bribary for power. All of this is classed as Terrorism in Islam. So that means that if a group of muslims went out and started abusing people and making them feel unsafe in any road here in England that in the laws of Islam counts as Terrorism. Surely that means that these fools that started this in Paris, as well as the likes of IS are all guilty of Hirabah? They are Terrorists trying to say they can do this under a religion that actually defines them as terrorists anyway!

What about hate? These people went to kill in cold blood, that is for sure. Was the killing just? No.. What does Islam say about that? Well it says this:
"And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness" To further illustrate this point I want to make a mention about hate. Muhammad (pbuh) said (again paraphrasing since the exact words I have forgotten): "Do not hate a person. Hate the action that they take, but not the individual". So say someone killed the Pope, or the supreme Rabbi (I am sorry for not knowing the correct term) or the most senior Mufti (God forbid any of this happening). Should a Muslim hate that person? No. Should he be just on that person? Yes. He has killed therefore he should face the punishment, whatever that is. Should a Muslim hate the action? Yes. So obviously someone forgot to tell IS about all this...
And what of Christians and Jews as mentioned in the Quraan? Well, first of all the fact that they are mentioned by NAME shows that they are to be respected and treated with the utmost kindess. This is not to say that other religions are secondary, but this is to make a point. Muslims, Christians and Jews are all Abrahamic religions. The Quraan says that these people are like our brothers and sisters. Why would we hate them? Why should we hate them? Does the Pope say to hate Muslims or Jews? Nope. Does the head Rabbi say that (of Christians and Muslims)? Nope. Does the Imam in Makkah say that (Of Jews and Christians)? Nope. Then where have we got this hell bent idea that we are all out to get each other? I don't care if some guy points a gun to my head and says "You will hate Muslims/Jews/Christians". I will look at him and tell him straight to his face: "If that was the true message of religion, then the leaders would have told me. Not you."

If you look at my post about Islam and tolerance to other religions in the Islam thread you will see a clear example of how Muslims were shown that they were to protect people, not hurt them. An example so clear that I cannot see how a Muslim could deny it, or anyone else.
I know this is now massively deviating from the point, but it fits in this instance of these murderers. We talk about an eye for an eye right? Well how is this for a show of peace:
"Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil."
That is what Muhammad told the Muslims to do.

Next up let me clear something about war. Muslims believe that Jesus Christ WILL return to Earth. This may be different from the Christian beliefs yes, but the respect they hold for Jesus is very dear. Jesus was said to have had a beard. Therefore Muhammad kept a beard and informed Muslims to keep a beard. Not out of respect for ISLAM. But out of respect for JESUS. Now when Jesus returns to Earth, Muslims believe the world will be in turmoil. There will be a lot of fighting against those who wish to just destroy everything, and they believe that Jesus will unite the world against the one known as the Anti-Christ. On that day (and the years leading up to it), Muslims WILL fight. But will it be in cities or terrorising innocents or whatnot? No. Because that is NOT Islam. And that order to fight has not been given. They believe the order will be given by a man named Imam Mahdi, who will then step aside and defer to the orders of Jesus. So who is this Imam? Well nobody knows. It says in Islam that he will reveal himself in Makkah on his 40th birthday and he will be recognised by an angel in human form. That has not happened yet, whether you believe in it or not. That much is clear. So where have these people got it in their minds that they must fight and break EVERY rule of Islam regarding fighting and then how dare they use that very name as their reason. And lastly about war. Say that hypothetically the reason for the terrorist bombings was just (which I feel disgusted about even saying). Well then there is another law they clearly forgot. A Muslim commander going to war MUST give fair warning to an enemy to prepare. As a matter of fact one highlighted incident says that a four month warning was given before a battle. FOUR MONTHS. And then when war commences there is no allowances for a mistake. Women, Children, the elderly, the ill cannot be harmed. Nor can the unarmed, the innocent. Nor can trees that bear fruit be harmed (which if we extend to modern day we could include anything that produces food), or a town be destroyed. All these things were clearly forgotten by these terrorists.

Bottom line is that these people disgust me for many reasons. One is the actions they take. And second is justifying them with religion and twisting peoples minds into believing that is what religion really is. I hate what they do. And the media never ever help sadly. Please, for the sake of peace let us all just leave the finer points of religion to the people who have studied for years and ask them. You and I should not be interpreting it. The Pope and Priests should be showing the world Christianity, the Rabbis showing Judaism and the Muftis and Imams showing Islam. Not Tom, Dick and Harry from 123 Fake Street who have decided that the scholars have no idea what they are talking about and take matters into their own hands, twisting the minds of all of us simple, peaceful people.
Sorry Omnis for the post being so long!

 

[Johnnypenso]

Hacker group Anonymous have said they intend to retaliate against jihadists by taking down their websites and social media accounts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...tacks-by-shutting-down-jihadist-websites.html

Good, hacktivists doing some good:tup:.

If I understand correctly, the female suspect is still on the loose?

 

[tarnheld]

Here is a cartoon by Joe Sacco, deeply thought provoking...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng...joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks

This unites some of the differing opinions in this thread.

 

[Omnis]

I am afraid my own knowledge limits me from explaining further, but perhaps sometime in the future when I do more research I may have an answer for you. All I can say right now is that IF Islam was build to kill people in that way, do you not think that the billion odd Muslim population would have all been storming around killing?

One thing I will give you though is that yes, there is bound to be more violence under the banner of "radical Islam". Because people do not understand Islam. To understand Islam you need to study it for years. That is why you and I, nor the pope can truely say what Islam means. Spreading Islam through violence? Gosh no. Yes it says that in the Quraan, but bring it all in context of what that particular passage was revealed please. It may have referred to one specific incident. The Quraan is a guide book yes. BUT it also clearly says that "Through this book you can be guided, or misguided". That is why Muslims turn to the ways of the Prophet for clarfication. That is why they have scholars who do nothing but study text after text to see if Islam is being interpreted correctly day in, day out. Now if Muhammad had said "Go unto the earth and spread the word of Islam through the sword" Then yes, I would have not a single arguement and I would completely be agreeing with you. BUT I know that Muhammad said "To spread Islam through kindness and good character is better than to lift the sword", or something akin to that. It is meant to be through the ACTIONS of a Muslim that people are invited to Islam or coexist alongside Islam. Doesn't that sound a little similar to the popular saying that has been through the years, the Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword? Fitting for this current situation.
Will I say that there have NOT been bloody chapters in Islams history? Of course not. But do I say that these terrorist attacks are an possible way of accepting Islam? Not at all. Something about Islamic Law and also about war.

The Pope did not mean to insinuate that Islam was built to kill people. Nor do I think that a billion people would have gone rampaging if it were. But that issue of allowance or that which is permissible by will rather than concluded by reason is what is of central concern here.

Let us consider the question posed in the article again: "When Christians act in such a way (violence, murder, terrorism), they are unequivocally at odds with their own conception of God. Is the same true of Muslims?"

Your response leads me to believe that the answer is indeed "No." Of course, it's not your fault or muslims' fault. Thank you for responding so wholeheartedly, but read below for more of my thoughts on why.

But first:

What about hate? These people went to kill in cold blood, that is for sure. Was the killing just? No.. What does Islam say about that? Well it says this:
"And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness" To further illustrate this point I want to make a mention about hate. Muhammad (pbuh) said (again paraphrasing since the exact words I have forgotten): "Do not hate a person. Hate the action that they take, but not the individual". So say someone killed the Pope, or the supreme Rabbi (I am sorry for not knowing the correct term) or the most senior Mufti (God forbid any of this happening). Should a Muslim hate that person? No. Should he be just on that person? Yes. He has killed therefore he should face the punishment, whatever that is.

And what of Christians and Jews as mentioned in the Quraan? Well, first of all the fact that they are mentioned by NAME shows that they are to be respected and treated with the utmost kindess. This is not to say that other religions are secondary, but this is to make a point. Muslims, Christians and Jews are all Abrahamic religions. The Quraan says that these people are like our brothers and sisters. Why would we hate them? Why should we hate them? Does the Pope say to hate Muslims or Jews? Nope. Does the head Rabbi say that (of Christians and Muslims)? Nope. Does the Imam in Makkah say that (Of Jews and Christians)? Nope. Then where have we got this hell bent idea that we are all out to get each other? I don't care if some guy points a gun to my head and says "You will hate Muslims/Jews/Christians". I will look at him and tell him straight to his face: "If that was the true message of religion, then the leaders would have told me. Not you."

When you have a religion that stresses the will of god, it opens the door to dangerous human interpretation or perversion. Are they to be treated with the utmost kindness because it has been willed so by revealed scripture? Or is it because that is the moral, reasonable conclusion? A good person's attitude toward a person or people doesn't matter on what the Pope says. It can be reasoned independently. You have already said that the scriptures themselves are arbitrary (may guide or misguide), and that the proper practice of Islam depends on that which the Prophet/Arbiter Muhammad has set forth by teachings and example. Therefore, the conception of God for the Muslim depends mostly on muftis and imams. What do you do when a new arbiter re-interprets the will of God and does not follow the original chosen arbiter Muhammad? Obviously, we have a rash of muslims today for whom violence and these heinous acts are not at odds with God and all that they believe. This is a huge problem for Islam; it has decimated the Levant and now western civilization is paying for it too. My contention-- my fear, rather, is that this is "baked into the cake" for Islam, and it's all due to theological voluntarism.

Next up let me clear something about war. Muslims believe that Jesus Christ WILL return to Earth. This may be different from the Christian beliefs yes, but the respect they hold for Jesus is very dear. Jesus was said to have had a beard. Therefore Muhammad kept a beard and informed Muslims to keep a beard. Not out of respect for ISLAM. But out of respect for JESUS. Now when Jesus returns to Earth, Muslims believe the world will be in turmoil. There will be a lot of fighting against those who wish to just destroy everything, and they believe that Jesus will unite the world against the one known as the Anti-Christ. On that day (and the years leading up to it), Muslims WILL fight. But will it be in cities or terrorising innocents or whatnot? No. Because that is NOT Islam. And that order to fight has not been given. They believe the order will be given by a man named Imam Mahdi, who will then step aside and defer to the orders of Jesus. So who is this Imam? Well nobody knows. It says in Islam that he will reveal himself in Makkah on his 40th birthday and he will be recognised by an angel in human form. That has not happened yet, whether you believe in it or not. That much is clear. So where have these people got it in their minds that they must fight and break EVERY rule of Islam regarding fighting and then how dare they use that very name as their reason. And lastly about war. Say that hypothetically the reason for the terrorist bombings was just (which I feel disgusted about even saying). Well then there is another law they clearly forgot. A Muslim commander going to war MUST give fair warning to an enemy to prepare. As a matter of fact one highlighted incident says that a four month warning was given before a battle. FOUR MONTHS. And then when war commences there is no allowances for a mistake. Women, Children, the elderly, the ill cannot be harmed. Nor can the unarmed, the innocent. Nor can trees that bear fruit be harmed (which if we extend to modern day we could include anything that produces food), or a town be destroyed. All these things were clearly forgotten by these terrorists.

Bottom line is that these people disgust me for many reasons. One is the actions they take. And second is justifying them with religion and twisting peoples minds into believing that is what religion really is. I hate what they do. And the media never ever help sadly. Please, for the sake of peace let us all just leave the finer points of religion to the people who have studied for years and ask them. You and I should not be interpreting it. The Pope and Priests should be showing the world Christianity, the Rabbis showing Judaism and the Muftis and Imams showing Islam. Not Tom, Dick and Harry from 123 Fake Street who have decided that the scholars have no idea what they are talking about and take matters into their own hands, twisting the minds of all of us simple, peaceful people.
Sorry Omnis for the post being so long!

So we have to wait for Imam Mahdi to fix it? Catholicism reigned in its dark ages and became syn Logos or realigned with the word of God. Islam must do the same. Apparently, only the Islamic leaders can do this. If the billions of muslims defer to them for all religious interpretation, they must answer Pope Benedict's Regensburg question. True Islam cannot afford to exist behind a veil of ignorance. Just as the Catholic church saw a new evangelization in the wake of the sexual abuse scandals, there needs to be a heroic call to action for all muslims against this radicalization. You can't just say, "That's not islam," anymore. True, it is not the fault of Islam, but it is the fault in Islam.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Here is a cartoon by Joe Sacco, deeply thought provoking...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng...joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks

This unites some of the differing opinions in this thread.

Going to be interesting to see if any blacks or Jews try to kill him and everyone he works with. I'm guessing probably not.

 

[ECGadget]

The Pope did not mean to insinuate that Islam was built to kill people. Nor do I think that a billion people would have gone rampaging if it were. But that issue of allowance or that which is permissible by will rather than concluded by reason is what is of central concern here.

Let us consider the question posed in the article again: "When Christians act in such a way (violence, murder, terrorism), they are unequivocally at odds with their own conception of God. Is the same true of Muslims?"

Your response leads me to believe that the answer is indeed "No." Of course, it's not your fault or muslims' fault. Thank you for responding so wholeheartedly, but read below for more of my thoughts on why.

But first:

When you have a religion that stresses the will of god, it opens the door to dangerous human interpretation or perversion. Are they to be treated with the utmost kindness because it has been willed so by revealed scripture? Or is it because that is the moral, reasonable conclusion? A good person's attitude toward a person or people doesn't matter on what the Pope says. It can be reasoned independently. You have already said that the scriptures themselves are arbitrary (may guide or misguide), and that the proper practice of Islam depends on that which the Prophet/Arbiter Muhammad has set forth by teachings and example. Therefore, the conception of God for the Muslim depends mostly on muftis and imams. What do you do when a new arbiter re-interprets the will of God and does not follow the original chosen arbiter Muhammad? Obviously, we have a rash of muslims today for whom violence and these heinous acts are not at odds with God and all that they believe. This is a huge problem for Islam; it has decimated the Levant and now western civilization is paying for it too. My contention-- my fear, rather, is that this is "baked into the cake" for Islam, and it's all due to theological voluntarism.



So we have to wait for Imam Mahdi to fix it? Catholicism reigned in its dark ages and became syn Logos or realigned with the word of God. Islam must do the same. Apparently, only the Islamic leaders can do this. If the billions of muslims defer to them for all religious interpretation, they must answer Pope Benedict's Regensburg question. True Islam cannot afford to exist behind a veil of ignorance. Just as the Catholic church saw a new evangelization in the wake of the sexual abuse scandals, there needs to be a heroic call to action for all muslims against this radicalization. You can't just say, "That's not islam," anymore. True, it is not the fault of Islam, but it is the fault in Islam.

I am in no way saying that the pope meant to insinuate that; I believe the pope to be a good man just as any other man can be.
Violence, Murder and Terrorism are at odd with Gods will, according to Islam. The whole idea about Hirabah shows this. Focussing on this one incident right here, I can say there there is zero justification for what happened, in Islam.
Moving on to about stressing the will of God. You are correct that is does open the door to dangerous interpretations. We have seen it time and time again in every religion throughout history. But if we take into context when the Quraan was revealed. It is said to be a guidance for all mankind and in the time when it was revealed the common goodness that we have and take for granted nowdays was not present in Arabia. Slavery, beating, bruality, burying children alive, exploitation, cheating, racism, hate, corruption etc was all rife. So the Quraan set these things straight. In todays day and age, we as human beings should be free from this because we have become better people, whether it be associated to the Quraan, Bible, Torah, or just human nature itself. The fact is we are a better people now than before. But Islam is meant to be a way of life, were to be a good person is just as important to a Muslim as it is to fast for one month. You are right, the conception of God and understanding the meanings of Islam depend on Muftis and Imams. But then again, does not the deep meanings of rocketry and flight depend on those who have studied it for life? As for a new arbiter; well Islam says that Muhammad is the one to follow, and if anybody says that they are replacing him that will not be Islam. So we do not have to worry about that for Muslims. And your fear is justified; after all I am not knowledgable to explain it all and aleviate those fears.
As for waiting for Imam Mahdi? Gosh no! I do not mean to say that until that happens Muslims should sit on their laurels and let terrorism run around in their name. What I am saying is that Muslims should not be even thinking about committing crimes like this, or any crimes in fact. A good Muslim is not just one who prays or fasts or makes a pilgrimage. He/She is one who is a good human being first and foremost. The terrorists are not good human beings, and they pick whatever they wish, take it out of context and use it as justification for attacking. And on a final point I do agree with you on one thing, there needs to be more done for Muslims to stand up against this terrorism. The push has already started but it needs to gather momentum faster. I will always say that "It is not Islam" in itself, but it is the duty of the followers of Islam to both condemn the actions and take action to further prevent this happening within their own ranks. Just like a shepard will look after a flock of sheep, if one strays he will follow it and bring it back to where it should be. Muslims, and Muslim leaders need to do this as much as they can.


And an additional note, I am quite enjoying this debate with you, though I wish it were in the wake of a less grim situation...

 

[Swagger897]

Watching ABC news now (after NBC, not really a fan of ABC except its Friday night sitcoms) and apparently one of the brothers ran into a worker which he shook his hand with, and said "We don't shoot civilians."

uh-huh... riiiight. Not sure how a cartoonist is a devil or anything but not sure how much I believe that quote either.

 

[Dotini]

Watching ABC news now (after NBC, not really a fan of ABC except its Friday night sitcoms) and apparently one of the brothers ran into a worker which he shook his hand with, and said "We don't shoot civilians."

uh-huh... riiiight. Not sure how a cartoonist is a devil or anything but not sure how much I believe that quote either.

Probably what he meant was the people he shot he had on a list of names provided to him by superiors - ultimately the Caliph - designated as targets of assassination. The targets were not warriors with swords or guns, but warriors of the mind, the word and the image - very powerful warriors in a war of civilizations and cultures.

 

[Omnis]

You are right, the conception of God and understanding the meanings of Islam depend on Muftis and Imams. But then again, does not the deep meanings of rocketry and flight depend on those who have studied it for life?

Rockets and planes don't fly because of the declarations of aerospace engineers. In other words, the engineers have not figured out god's will to make them work. We as laymen don't look to engineers for the will of flight. Whether you believe in God or not, that's just not the way it works. Theological voluntarism in this case would be mistaken, so can you see how the greater voluntarism in Islam is a or perhaps the major pitfall of that religion?

 

[Swagger897]

Probably what he meant was the people he shot he had on a list of names provided to him by superiors - ultimately the Caliph - designated as targets of assassination. The targets were not warriors with swords or guns, but warriors of the mind, the word and the image - very powerful warriors in a war of civilizations and cultures.

Still, the fact one can have a mindset that someone with a pencil/pen/writing/image is a threat is a bit ridiculous (in the case of an established organization/corporation/business which publishes material as such on a regular basis, unlike random Facebook posts claiming to do harm to the government/civilians) and those of whom create the materials should be killed. As if a three year old with good drawing skills draws a slightly dark skinned man with a pillow on his head and has a beard is a threat to 1.7 billion people.
And with the US over the last few years seeking out to "help" "mentally ill" is a bit of a joke. You're never going to be able to distinguish people like this who assimilate themselves with everyone else.

Of course, you have to have the mindset that these individuals have and I can't see myself or my family ever having such.

Rockets and planes don't fly because of the declarations of aerospace engineers. In other words, the engineers have not figured out god's will to make them work. We as laymen don't look to engineers for the will of flight. Whether you believe in God or not, that's just not the way it works. Theological voluntarism in this case would be mistaken, so can you see how the greater voluntarism in Islam is a or perhaps the major pitfall of that religion?

yeah, 1+... I'm sure birds don't care if they have perfect airfoil winged designs to help in flight. God given or evolution, it wasn't done by man.

 

[ultimate]

Watching ABC news now (after NBC, not really a fan of ABC except its Friday night sitcoms) and apparently one of the brothers ran into a worker which he shook his hand with, and said "We don't shoot civilians."

uh-huh... riiiight. Not sure how a cartoonist is a devil or anything but not sure how much I believe that quote either.

He said also he doesnt shoot women...
In the other hands, Amedy Coulibaly, one of three terrorists, met Sarkozy, the french President at this time, 4/5 years go

This is going crazy, i never seen my country in such ''chaos''
I was born in Paris and know every street, district...
Paris is partially unsecured in some popular quarters, Parisian suburbs (at night, do not even attempt to go out alone by yourself, do not wear jewels, luxurious watches, iPhones...)
Now those terrorist attacks, i cant even imagine how feel Parisians right now
We r in trouble, we knew that some youngsters have been formatted through social networks but we never expected such attacks within Paris

 

[prisonermonkeys]

In the other hands, Amedy Coulibaly, one of three terrorists, met Sarkozy, the french President at this time, 4/5 years go

What's to say he was radicalised then?

 

[tarnheld]

Going to be interesting to see if any blacks or Jews try to kill him and everyone he works with. I'm guessing probably not.

I hope so. But if a crackhead individual that is black or jewish kills, you wouldn't blame blacks or jews as a whole.

The reason i posted the cartoon is, you see a lot of Charlie Hebdo cartoons out of context floating in the internet, mostly the muslim ridicules. They lost their fun and became vessels for prejudice. Charlie Hebdo made lot's of other stuff that pokes fun on various themes. Just watch out if you see stuff out of context and don't jump to early conclusions, as we live in a complex world with no simple explanations or solutions.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I hope so. But if a crackhead individual that is black or jewish kills, you wouldn't blame blacks or jews as a whole.

True, but if it happened thousands of times a year, I also wouldn't chalk it up to random, isolated incidents either.

 

[tarnheld]

True, but if it happened thousands of times a year, I also wouldn't chalk it up to random, isolated incidents either.

Agree, but what could a single moslem do to stop these terrorists? What could the irish people do to stop the IRA?

 

[FoRiZon]

Sorry. But nevertheless violence is NOT the answer. I reject any terrorists as even Islam. Theyre just lying delusional idiots whose Islam is only by name.

 

[Carbonox]

I think Western society is strong enough not to fall for this.

Prime example is that just now on Dutch TV a reporter in Paris who is near the scene at the supermarket. He is interviewing people there, and if there is one thing to say about it, it's that it is a very multicultural neighborhood. And all of those interviewed, black, white, Arab, muslim all state the same thing.

What is happening will not tear society apart.
If it gets uploaded I'll post the video.

Frankly, while that would be the best case scenario, it unfortunately feels idealistic at this point...

 

[FoRiZon]

You'd be surprised how many other people will have adopted the same attitude after the latest attacks. Just reading the replies to stories about it on Facebook I see a worrying amount of mentions of "blow up all the mosques" and "shoot them all".

That's completely the wrong attitude to have about it, of course, but things like this will happen and so will so called 'revenge attacks' on mosques despite them having nothing to do with terrorism.

Males you wonder why more imams speak out loud against ISIS/Terrorists and also why Hollande added the "this is not about islam" part.

The way they hate on Islam (if theyre true) is equal the amount of ISIS hate to, well, non Islam (to their mind). Dont be a hypocrite guys.

 

[ECGadget]

Rockets and planes don't fly because of the declarations of aerospace engineers. In other words, the engineers have not figured out god's will to make them work. We as laymen don't look to engineers for the will of flight. Whether you believe in God or not, that's just not the way it works. Theological voluntarism in this case would be mistaken, so can you see how the greater voluntarism in Islam is a or perhaps the major pitfall of that religion?

You have a point there but I am not saying that engineers figured out Gods will. What I am saying is that in every field you have to have experts and those are the ones people look to for answers right? So similarly in religion you have the same thing. In Engineering we figure out how things work. Similarly these leaders are tasked with finding out how Islam works.
Take Aerospace Engineering to be the subject matter. Engineers study it for years and understand it. Take Islam as the subject matter. Muftis study it for years and understand it. That's the point I am trying to make ^^

 

[Denur]

I think Western society is strong enough not to fall for this.

Prime example is that just now on Dutch TV a reporter in Paris who is near the scene at the supermarket. He is interviewing people there, and if there is one thing to say about it, it's that it is a very multicultural neighborhood. And all of those interviewed, black, white, Arab, muslim all state the same thing.

What is happening will not tear society apart.
If it gets uploaded I'll post the video.

Frankly, while that would be the best case scenario, it unfortunately feels idealistic at this point...

Actually, to me it doesn't feel idealistic at all, au contraire, I see more and more reports about "our" Muslims speaking against the attacks, how they feel no connection what so ever with these terrorists. Most of them appear to be appalled by these attacks as much as anyone else. One example: Yesterday the non-Muslim major of my home town Den Bosch (NL) attended prayers at a local mosque and also addressed the people present: "I want to show you that I am of course also there for you. Whether you are Christian or Muslim, we are all horrified by these attacks in Paris. It's not them and us, it is us. We do it together in Den Bosch." That got him applause in the Mosque, which is (according to my newspaper, Brabants Dagblad) very unusual. I also feel closer to our Muslim community since these latest attacks.