VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
Europe - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 2,133 comments
- 118,976 views
- 9,262
- Corsham
- lipming
It seems that one of the students complained to their parents about this (even though the Muslim students were invited to leave the classroom when he showed the cartoons), and then a bunch of parents started protesting this. The killer lived outside Paris so he probably didn't know the parents personally but obviously word got out in Muslim circles and he decided justice medieval-style is how you defend the honour of your religion when someone has the gall to challenge it.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
The poor dumb teacher probably felt briefly chuffed putting himself on the line for freedom of speech in the heart of a rapidly changing Europe. But the heady thrill of displaying a disrespectful caricature cost him everything. Education in caution, prudence and common sense seems to be missing from the modern French curriculum.
- 13,882
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Obviously not, because they don't have commandments against images of Jesus. Historically they've been polite enough to kill each other, although nobody else is actually sure what the difference between Catholics and Protestants is besides the hats. In modern times they just kill people for being gay. Progress!
Yes, God forbid that a teacher actually teaches the students. They should obviously submit to the worldview of whoever threatens the most violence, as that is the only reasonable and rational way to run a society.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,279
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Or murder and mutilate women and children for not joining their resistance army.
Yes, but Islam! Being shot full of holes by the police for murder doesn't sound like any kind of "new normal" to me. In fact, it sounds like such criminal acts are very much frowned upon by the majority of society.
Last edited:
- 3,895
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
Ideally, the potential for lots of things. This includes (but is not limited to): the power (and consequences) of freedom of expression (which seemed to be the teachers original intention), something in relation to religious artwork, something in relation to xenophobia past or present, the history of how a particular religion has been viewed in different parts of society throughout time, and probably a few other things that I can't think of. Hell, it could've been a basic religious history lesson saying "this particular 🤬 is not, and will never be OK."
Personally, I have mad respect for this teacher for trying to teach such a sensitive topic to his students (according to the article he gave his Muslim students fair warning and chances to leave the classroom). The guy who decided to kill him in "retaliation" is just a flat-out piece of 🤬, regardless of his religion imo.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Yes, I fully agree with this much. And if that was indeed his intent, he succeeded brilliantly.
Last edited:
- 3,895
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
I realllyyy hope that you're not implying that this teacher intended to get himself killed by showing his class basic religious history.
The moment you let psychos like this teachers assailant win (which is what you do by skirting around important and/or relevant topics out of fear) is the moment that freedom of any kind of expression dies.
- 13,882
- Adelaide
- Neomone
You're absolutely right. Teaching French children about Charlie Hebdo serves no good purpose. Learning about modern examples of extremism and terrorism has no value at all in the year 2020, as it's clearly completely irrelevant. We have no extremism here, nor terrorism. Everything is fine. Take your soma.
You getting worried about the riots where you are? Is that a better explanation of your sudden urge to justify kowtowing to terrorism? Lets be honest, I've seen a lot of your posts on this board and I find it hard to believe that the world you want to see is one in which people are restricted in what they're able to say for fear of some bonkers neighbour coming over and chopping their head off.
That's not just a whole other kettle of fish, that's a whole other kitchen.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Correct. The world I want to to see is tolerant, liberal and accepting. It accords others dignity and respect for their differences of race, creed and culture. That is an ideal, and one that is easiest to achieve in a united, industrious and working society. That is largely the world I've dwelt in Seattle. However, the sun also rises on the real world of France. It is very plain to see that due to failures of policy (colonialism, Algeria, etc) and at arms (Libya, etc), once-great France must cope with endemic discordance and squalor instead. To openly taunt, humiliate and provoke a significant segment of your population with high offenses is tantamount to self-destruction, in my humble opinion.
- 131
- United Kingdom
- MC-170
I am a Muslim and I follow Islam correctly – how it is supposed to be, based on scripture and well rooted teachings with a clear chain of narration. Correct, true, and authentic. I fear people are missing a key and essential point in this discussion here. The key point is that one should never judge a religion by its followers. Never even form an opinion of a religion based on its followers. So many converts to Islam have stated that ‘were it for looking at the actions of the Muslims I would never have converted to Islam’. So many converts to Islam state that they only accepted Islam because they studied it, and understood it properly. Many Muslims misunderstand Islam. And then others judge Islam by those Muslims who do not understand it and do not follow it properly. The end effect of this is that those Muslims who do not follow it correctly do a disservice to Islam, like the perpetrator of this crime, and those who form opinions on Islam based on those misguided Muslims they have seen do a disservice to themselves. This just creates a muddied picture where many are viewing others in a completed distorted way, which has no credible basis.
Why do I follow Islam? Do I follow Islam because I was taught to, or because I was forced to by my parents? No. Not at all. I follow Islam because I have studied it closely, and formed my own opinion. The truth is that Islam is the only correct way, the rightly guided way. If people realised what Islam is, they would see nothing but a pure, authentic and beautiful faith, which benefits the follower, his neighbours, his community, and his country. Islam is actually extremely simple – accept that there is no God except Allah, the most awesome creator and sustainer of the universe, and that Muhammad (saw) is the final messenger of Allah.
In reference to this crime being discussed, it is just that – a crime. A crime committed by a criminal. The criminal ought to be arrested and placed on trial.
This teacher should not be showing cartoons of a revered religious figure to his students. There is a limit to ‘freedom of expression’. I cannot go and swear at people in the street and then rely on my freedom of expression to justify my behaviour. But what this teacher did is far worse than swearing at people in the street. He will have known that drawing or showing cartoons of a revered religious figure is considered blasphemous for Muslims. His obviously held negative views of Islam and decided to use his classroom and his students to teach ‘freedom of expression’. He could have taught about freedom of expression in a million other ways. But he wanted to demonstrate his hatred of Islam to his students. Teachers should not be behaving in such a way. Teachers should be teaching their students in a manner that is befitting of a teacher. A teacher who uses such ‘cartoons’ to teach cannot be regarded as a credible teacher.
My dear friends, the perpetrator of this crime was an 18 year old man. How much religious knowledge is an 18 year old man likely to have amassed? We don’t know his date of birth but the date of the crime may have been his 18th birthday. In which case he may have been 17 one day before the crime. He plainly had very little knowledge of Islam, else he would not have committed this crime. His grievances ought to have been channelled in a ways that were compliant with the laws of France. If he felt that the actions of the teacher upset him, he ought to have made a complaint to the school and / or the education minister of France. This was a terrible crime to commit, designed to intimidate. The reality is that this individual has not furthered the cause of Islam at all, which is to show how beautiful the real Islam is. Rather, by committing this crime he has done a disservice to Islam and other Muslims who now will be viewed even more suspiciously when they have committed no crime.
Any religion that advocates killing of people in this way cannot be a true religion. This is because killing people is so against the basic standard or norm of humanity that no God would legislate for such a crime to be permissible. Thus, it is not in Islam to go around killing people at all, whatever their faith is or whatever the colour of their skin. When Muslims travel to other countries they are required to comply with the law of the land. This is an Islamic teaching. The perpetrator of this crime did not consider this teaching, and so was not a representative of Muslims when committing such a crime. Certainly not in my name, and I do not feel that I should need to apologise for his actions because his crime was not a religious crime, since Islam does not permit such a crime.
I note that many of the writers on this discussion above are swearing at Islam. It is very bad to do this because they have obviously not understood what the correct Islam is. In Islam if you kill one human being it is as though you have killed the whole of humanity. If you save one human life, it is as though you have saved the whole of humanity – this is from the Quran itself.
Also, many other writers above have quoted verses from the Quran and rely on these verses as the justification for their argument that Islam advocates for violence. This is not correct at all. The verses of the Quran they quote referred to a specific time period in Islamic history and for a specific people. In a nutshell the context was that there was a peace treaty that the Muslims had agreed to with the non-Muslims who was aggressors at that time, and God revealed a verse that permitted retaliation by physical means if they were attacked first, despite their agreement to the peace treaty – at that specific time and against those specific people who breached the peace treaty. Islam does not at all allow violence. Islam is the faith that was the first to allow women to inherit property, far before any western nation permitted women to inherit property.
The keyboard warriors sitting in the comfort of their sofas at home, fuelling hatred online, should realise that they are entirely misguided. There are now hundreds of cases of priests abusing little boys in churches, both historic and recent. However, I know that there are always some religious people who will not follow what their religion actually permits, and so I will not judge Christianity based on the actions of these priests.
Ultimately, my message is – read. Read and research what Islam is and how it is supposed to be adhered to. Extremism is not at all permitted in Islam.
Please have a look at the following website:
islamagainstextremism.com
Thank you friends
MC
Why do I follow Islam? Do I follow Islam because I was taught to, or because I was forced to by my parents? No. Not at all. I follow Islam because I have studied it closely, and formed my own opinion. The truth is that Islam is the only correct way, the rightly guided way. If people realised what Islam is, they would see nothing but a pure, authentic and beautiful faith, which benefits the follower, his neighbours, his community, and his country. Islam is actually extremely simple – accept that there is no God except Allah, the most awesome creator and sustainer of the universe, and that Muhammad (saw) is the final messenger of Allah.
In reference to this crime being discussed, it is just that – a crime. A crime committed by a criminal. The criminal ought to be arrested and placed on trial.
This teacher should not be showing cartoons of a revered religious figure to his students. There is a limit to ‘freedom of expression’. I cannot go and swear at people in the street and then rely on my freedom of expression to justify my behaviour. But what this teacher did is far worse than swearing at people in the street. He will have known that drawing or showing cartoons of a revered religious figure is considered blasphemous for Muslims. His obviously held negative views of Islam and decided to use his classroom and his students to teach ‘freedom of expression’. He could have taught about freedom of expression in a million other ways. But he wanted to demonstrate his hatred of Islam to his students. Teachers should not be behaving in such a way. Teachers should be teaching their students in a manner that is befitting of a teacher. A teacher who uses such ‘cartoons’ to teach cannot be regarded as a credible teacher.
My dear friends, the perpetrator of this crime was an 18 year old man. How much religious knowledge is an 18 year old man likely to have amassed? We don’t know his date of birth but the date of the crime may have been his 18th birthday. In which case he may have been 17 one day before the crime. He plainly had very little knowledge of Islam, else he would not have committed this crime. His grievances ought to have been channelled in a ways that were compliant with the laws of France. If he felt that the actions of the teacher upset him, he ought to have made a complaint to the school and / or the education minister of France. This was a terrible crime to commit, designed to intimidate. The reality is that this individual has not furthered the cause of Islam at all, which is to show how beautiful the real Islam is. Rather, by committing this crime he has done a disservice to Islam and other Muslims who now will be viewed even more suspiciously when they have committed no crime.
Any religion that advocates killing of people in this way cannot be a true religion. This is because killing people is so against the basic standard or norm of humanity that no God would legislate for such a crime to be permissible. Thus, it is not in Islam to go around killing people at all, whatever their faith is or whatever the colour of their skin. When Muslims travel to other countries they are required to comply with the law of the land. This is an Islamic teaching. The perpetrator of this crime did not consider this teaching, and so was not a representative of Muslims when committing such a crime. Certainly not in my name, and I do not feel that I should need to apologise for his actions because his crime was not a religious crime, since Islam does not permit such a crime.
I note that many of the writers on this discussion above are swearing at Islam. It is very bad to do this because they have obviously not understood what the correct Islam is. In Islam if you kill one human being it is as though you have killed the whole of humanity. If you save one human life, it is as though you have saved the whole of humanity – this is from the Quran itself.
Also, many other writers above have quoted verses from the Quran and rely on these verses as the justification for their argument that Islam advocates for violence. This is not correct at all. The verses of the Quran they quote referred to a specific time period in Islamic history and for a specific people. In a nutshell the context was that there was a peace treaty that the Muslims had agreed to with the non-Muslims who was aggressors at that time, and God revealed a verse that permitted retaliation by physical means if they were attacked first, despite their agreement to the peace treaty – at that specific time and against those specific people who breached the peace treaty. Islam does not at all allow violence. Islam is the faith that was the first to allow women to inherit property, far before any western nation permitted women to inherit property.
The keyboard warriors sitting in the comfort of their sofas at home, fuelling hatred online, should realise that they are entirely misguided. There are now hundreds of cases of priests abusing little boys in churches, both historic and recent. However, I know that there are always some religious people who will not follow what their religion actually permits, and so I will not judge Christianity based on the actions of these priests.
Ultimately, my message is – read. Read and research what Islam is and how it is supposed to be adhered to. Extremism is not at all permitted in Islam.
Please have a look at the following website:
islamagainstextremism.com
Thank you friends
MC
- 87,105
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It's fascinating that you've decided what went on in the classroom, and have decided that this situation you've imagined is due to this person's hatred of Islam. You have absolutely no context to come up with either of these things.
What we know is that he showed some of the students in his class a cartoon of the prophet Muhammed. He showed it to those who remained to see it voluntarily after he advised the students, and particular the Muslim students, that the item is considered blasphemy in Islam. We have absolutely no context for how this came to pass. For that matter, we don't know what the origin of the cartoon was - if he didn't actually draw it, then he was not the one blaspheming...
The class was a humanities class, teaching "civil education" (what we might call "citizenship") - which is essentially the concept of teaching students ethics and morality of the nation in which they live - and covering freedom of expression. One of the most prominent things to happen in France recently regarding the freedom of expression is the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices, and students may have been curious exactly what it was that Charlie Hebdo did that resulted in people deciding to attack the offices. It's difficult to show them without... you know, showing them.
We do know that he told the Muslim students that they didn't have to see it, which seems pretty respectful of their faith rather than hatred of it.
How have you decided that this man hated Islam?
How have you not, instead, decided that at least three people involved hate not-Islam?
An unidentified student told their Muslim father (we don't know if the student was Muslim) that one of the cartoons Paty showed was Muhammed nude - which would ordinarily beg the question of how they knew, but this is somewhat enhanced by the fact that the girl wasn't actually in school that day - prompting the father and known hate-preacher Abdelhakim Sefrioui to dox the teacher and call for action against him. Over something they hadn't witnessed and had at best heard third-hand.
This directly led to Paty's murder by an adult Muslim, because he hated what he'd heard from a preacher who'd heard from a man who'd heard from his daughter who'd heard from a schoolmate about something that might not have even happened.
That's three people who hate something that isn't Islam enough to take actions they know might result in death. And you're going after one man who you say hates Islam but took an action he knew would prevent offence to Muslims.
And it doesn't require them to understand what you say real Islam is. It only requires them to understand what they think Islam is. As one of them is literally employed to teach other people what Islam is, and he apparently teaches it wrongly, it's little surprise if ordinary French Muslims get their ideas of what Islam is wrong.
Then there isn't freedom of expression. This statement also shows that either you don't understand Islam either, or you do and it has considerably more over-reach than it ought.
In essence, it may be against your religion to depict your prophets, but it's not against mine. Your religion determines and limits your behaviour and standards, not anyone else's.
If Islam is seeking to regulate the behaviour of non-believers it's a lot more oppressive than you give it credit. If not, no Muslim should care that a non-Muslim showed a cartoon of Muhammed to other non-Muslims.
Incidentally, if images of Muhammed are forbidden, nobody knows what he looked like. So how do we know a cartoon of him is actually showing him?
Wait until you find out about Greece. And the Norsemen.
Last edited:
- 13,882
- Adelaide
- Neomone
You'll have to forgive me if I don't see a faith that a man used to justify killing another man who showed a cartoon to some children as correct, righteous, pure, authentic or beautiful.
There is no image that a person can draw that is justification for their death, or even their injury. It's a :censored:ing picture. Grow up and get some perspective.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
If this is your opinion, fine. If it's meant to be a statement of fact, you'll need to supply some proof. Either way if you do wish to discuss this further it should probably be in either the Islam thread or the "God" thread.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,552
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Nope.
Consequences for freedom of expression can exist and depending on what is being expressed certainly should exist (such as losing one's job for expressing racist, homophobic or bigoted views), being murdered should never be one of those consequences.
While I totally agree that an entire faith should not be judged or held accountable for the actions of an extreme minority (which is why collective punishment is correctly a war crime), to deny that an interpretation of more extreme views is part of what drove this individual is disingenuous at best. Does that mean that all Muslims should apologise for this murder? Of course not, that would be absurd, as would blaming all Muslims.
You should, however, feel free to condemn this individual for this action carried out in the name of your faith, just as I'm (as an atheist) happy to condemn those atheists who still bang on about Social Darwinism (not to be confused by Darwin and Evolution). Its perfectly normal and healthy to do so, as not everyone who shares a world-view or faith does so in a healthy or constructive manner.
Last edited:
- 12,512
- Ireland
- The__Luke
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,552
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The keyword here is 'Knowingly', otherwise pretty much any member of any faith posting in the god thread would have been banned by now, I can pretty much promise you that is the members' belief of his faith, and I could point you to members of other faiths who hold similar views.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Yeah, I doubt it too, although not sure what "real" means anymore. At one time, much of Europe and Asia Minor was overrun and conquered by real fierce, technically adept, well led and highly able Muslim warriors. More victims now than conquerors, much of that down to colonialism, Picot and Sykes. Way back when, Wallachia paid tribute. Maybe now we should call for reparations. Being wealthy, speaking freely and staying safe all at the same time costs money.
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,552
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The issue is that France has also imposed restrictions in recent years on all Muslims as well, not to mention that Macron if not exactly popular in France anyway.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...8a1dcc-04bc-11eb-b92e-029676f9ebec_story.html
Last edited:
- 13,882
- Adelaide
- Neomone
No, there's just more closet extremists than you thought. Or at least people who are willing to act tough on Instagram.
It's much the same in other religions, there's a small minority of Christians out there beating gays to death and shooting abortion doctors but a surprising amount of people who will cheer for it from behind their keyboards.
