Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

jmc007 said:
Crusaders were not following instruction of the Bible b.t.w.

O.k. Interpret these please.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Click to expand...



A interpretation is a good reason why religion should be kept to an individual - muslim or christian or other - and never let it play a part in state politics.. that and my personal right not to be ruled over by a religious person that's oppressing my right to believe what I like when I like.

"Killing in the name of" is a great track, it points out the violence that people attribute to and idea/ideal.. It's the ultimate not be held responsible card to quote but the reality is that it's a realisation of a mind that is so far gone that nothing is going help them.
 
flexo786 said:
ive never come across the bottom quote so cant comment on that but in regards to the first one. this short video explains it better then I can myself

http://youtu.be/9ajZkO9WIWw
Click to expand...

Goes on about invading and give them an ultimatum to convert or die. **** that!!!!

And he makes it sound soooo reasonable :rolleyes:

What a disgusting bunch of people,

And at no point in that video does he indicate that sort of thing will never happen again, this is because it's encased in the doctrine. Truly frightening and ignore at your peril.
 
Last edited:
thep02 said:
Agreed.
Click to expand...

I don't agree, he gave absolutely no real solutions, nor did he seem to understand the problem on a meaningful level.

Its the easiest thing in the world to just point out the obvious that the current terrorist situation is a retaliatory stance from an ongoing conflict the western Christian societies have with extreme Islamic groups throughout the world.

To me, I still haven't found anything that really deals with the fundamental fact that most of these things start because of differences of cultures clashing.. A western society that has been largely influenced from Christianity and a middle eastern society that has been largely influenced from Islam, the cultures are just not compatible in many ways (I'm not saying who's is right or wrong, just they are incompatible).

This all leads to the inevitable fact that there will be a clash in a very complex situation, and that it will be very far reaching..

And I think the clash of cultures is more local than that, I've said it before, but just looking at 3 simple aspects where mainstream Islam may not gel with our current laws (Bigamy, not being able to insult a prophet and equality) has not been addressed by anyone, which leads me to think that there is no wonder Muslim communities are accused of being xenophobic since I believe (currently until I get more answers) that it may be true (as some polls have tried to allude to) that main stream Islam requires elements of Sharia Law that are still be practised in a country whose laws are diametrically opposed to some of them, and that immediately harbours resentment and a will to change the law of the land to suit the religion, something we've spent years getting away from.

I'm all ears if someone wants to give me more information so I can form a better opinion.
 
Last edited:
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Russell Brand talking sense once again, it's pretty much exactly what I feel on the matter.
Click to expand...

I think it is interesting that he starts with waffling on about people having a myopic view of the world and then goes and has a myopic view of the world. To try and distil this attack down to purely the Wests foreign policy is just as myopic as trying to say it is all Islam's fault.

However, confirmation bias is strong so keep enjoying commentators that repeat stuff you want to hear.
 
Buddy said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...stinians-suffer-hugely-Jewish-hands-well.html

*cough* free speech *cough*
Click to expand...

To be fair he did say that the Palestinian problem was the fault of Jews rather than Israelis. You know, the same sort of collective blame we are not meant to do with Islam and these attacks? She was a Parisian Jew, not an Israeli.

And then you have the issue of be saying people shouldn't be allowed to call for his resignation then you are restricting their free speech. He hasn't resigned or been fired so far though so it seems free speech is alive and well?
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Russell Brand talking sense once again, it's pretty much exactly what I feel on the matter.

Click to expand...

you think it is just down to foreign policy?

it is a naive view, killing people for insulting the prophet has occurred before the war on terror and in neutral countries

the biggest issue here is Islam and its inherent conflict with freedom of speech... if this was just a random terror attack just in reaction to foreign policy, just to kill westeners then they wouldn't have been so targeted in the magazine office, they went after specific people, other 'evil westerners' were let go unharmed. Russell seems to completely miss that... or sorry Russell's discredited/plagiarizing journalist friend who he goes to for research, opinions for him to mouth off about.
 
How can societies based on relative Freedoms of speech be compatible with a society where a ruleset of strict adherence without questioning is fundamental to your daily life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom