Charlie Hebdo 'wins' the Islamophobia Award 2015

[dust1n]

Unfortunately, they probably never get a chance to realize it, since they're just dead. No virgins or rivers of wine, no grapes for their wives.

It's okay. We all know it in the back of our minds and fear it most. Otherwise people wouldn't go to such extreme to avoid it.

 

[dust1n]

No, Charlie Hebdo knew there are alqeada and isis, they knew some muslims in France supports them. So it was foolish of them to provoke such groups. Anyways they died as ''martyrs'' for free speech(in truth, free bigotry).

They knew there would be attack.

So, let me you ask you this, why shouldn't France just exile all the Muslims in its country?

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

They are martyrs for freedom of speech, thought and expression, but that wasn't their goal. They didn't set out to murder people and becomes martyrs that way; they used the pen, not the sword. And why not apply this principle evenly? Hey, people who vote for Hamas or associate with terrorists? I guess that they knew they could become targets. Collateral damage. They knew the risk, right?

Those who insult the prophet pbuh are cursed in this world and hereafter. I would hate to be in their shoes right now.

So, let me you ask you this, why shouldn't France just exile all the Muslims in its country?

So for the crimes of minority(isis supporters), the majority of muslims should be punished?

Would you agree that all christians should be kicked out from egypt, syria, iraq, morocco, indonesia because of the crimes of crusaders(invasions, drone attacks on civilians)?

 

[dust1n]

So for the crimes of minority(isis supporters), the majority of muslims should be punished?

Personally, I don't believe in borders at all, so this is for the sake of argument. But if there are ISIS members and and Al Qaeda members in France, and they are willing to openly kill people who practice apostasy in a country where Sharia law is not the situation, nor do Muslims constitute more than 10% of the population, and the average Muslim such as yourself openly agrees with the open murder of not just random people at the offensive newspaper, but even another Muslim cop, then wouldn't the simplest and most efficient way to fix this problem is to exile Muslims?

Do the majority of Muslims ask questions when determining which apostates to kill or exile? They certainly don't. How else could you avoid the corruption, right?

Like I said, I don't have any problems with any of the Muslims I've known. Then again, none of them of openly stated I should be put to death because I'm an atheist, or that it's okay for with a gun to go around shooting people. But if I was take the logic that it's definitely okay to kill people because of the things they say, then why would I limit this to apostates?

Would you agree that all christians should be kicked out from egypt, syria, iraq, morocco, indonesia because of the crimes of crusaders(invasions, drone attacks on civilians)?

I don't know. Are Christians going around Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Morocco, and Indonesia and killing Muslims for insulting their religion? Wouldn't it be acceptable for them to do so, according to your theology?

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Personally, I don't believe in borders at all, so this is for the sake of argument. But if there are ISIS members and and Al Qaeda members in France, and they are willingly open to kill people who practice apostasy in a country where Sharia law is not the situation, nor do Muslims constitute more than 10% of the population, and the average Muslim such as yourself openly agrees with the open murder of not just random people at the offensive newspaper, but even another Muslim cop, then wouldn't the simplest and most efficient way to fix this problem is to exile Muslims?

Do the majority of Muslims ask questions when determining which apostates to kill or exile? They certainly don't. How else could you avoid the corruption, right?

Like I said, I don't have any problems with any of the Muslims I've known. Then again, none of them of openly stated I should be put to death because I'm an atheist, or that it's okay for with a gun to go around shooting people. But if I was take the logic that it's definitely okay to kill people because of the things they say, then why would I limit this to apostates?



I don't know. Are Christians going around Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Morocco, and Indonesia and killing Muslims for insulting their religion? Wouldn't it be acceptable for them to do so, according to your theology?

I think it was clear what i said. I dont support the paris attacks.
What i said is, charlie hebdo made hasty decisions. They knew the risk and yet took it.
The reason i mentioned middle east christians to be kicked out as example, is because of your saying: should france expell muslims?
I told you, i would understand if france expelled isis supporters, but to expell all muslims(majority who dont support isis/alqeada) is a show of hatred. Thats why i said should christians be kicked out from middle east, because their christian fellowmen(usa) kills muslims and occupies muslim lands while they support zionists?


Majority should never be punished for the crimes of minority.

 

[columbus]

No, Charlie Hebdo knew there are alqeada and isis, they knew some muslims in France supports them. So it was foolish of them to provoke such groups. Anyways they died as ''martyrs'' for free speech(in truth, free bigotry).

They knew there would be attack.

What you seem to be saying is that the CH staff knew that Islam tends to inspire violence among Muslims. I would agree with that. That is my least favorite thing about the Religion of Peace , the primitive ethics. It shows rather clearly in the state of the Islamic world.

Tom

 

[gsa]

So, let me you ask you this, why shouldn't France just exile all the Muslims in its country?

This is a fair question to ask of anyone who supports the Charlie Hebdo murderers as consistent with Islam, and the execution or banishment of apostates in states under sharia. It of course is ridiculous to ask in most contexts.

Those who insult the prophet pbuh are cursed in this world and hereafter. I would hate to be in their shoes right now.

I doubt that, but I don't care about the hereafter. I'm concerned with your support for their punishment in the here and now.

So for the crimes of minority(isis supporters), the majority of muslims should be punished?

Would you agree that all christians should be kicked out from egypt, syria, iraq, morocco, indonesia because of the crimes of crusaders(invasions, drone attacks on civilians)?

You would agree that anyone who is an apostate should be kicked out, right? Or killed? And further, that Islamic states should not tolerate anyone who blasphemes against the beloved prophet of Islam?

If you believe those things, then you have no principled basis for objecting to the hypothetical European exile (or execution) of Muslims as enemies of the state. It would simply be the application of the very logic you have used. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of Europeans (and Westerners in general) are committed to freedom of belief and expression, so they are willing to accept Muslims as equal members of their societies, having long ago abandoned the kind of savagery you are describing.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Iam one of those who are against the paris attacks. But somehow charlie hebdo asked for it. They knew there are certain groups who kills both muslims and non-muslims. So they had it coming.

No. Just no.

They were murdered. They did not "have it coming." They did not "ask for it." Let's stop the brutality apologetics, please.

 

[dust1n]

I think it was clear what i said. I dont support the paris attacks.
What i said is, charlie hebdo made hasty decisions. They knew the risk and yet took it.

So is this not tantamount to saying that it was okay to kill to those people. "I don't support those one murders, but victims of those other murders had it coming." How else am I suppose to understand this other than sympathy with the gun men?

The reason i mentioned middle east christians to be kicked out as example, is because of your saying: should france expell muslims?
I told you, i would understand if france expelled isis supporters, but to expell all muslims(majority who dont support isis/alqeada) is a show of hatred. Thats why i said should christians be kicked out from middle east, because their christian fellowmen(usa) kills muslims and occupies muslim lands while they support zionists?

Hey bud, I'm all with you as opposed to USA being over in the Middle East at all since WWI. And I mean, no oil money to Saudi Arabia, no nothing. By the way, I'm not Christian, I'm an atheist, a crime in and of itself. I simply don't know what native Christian go about doing in the Middle East, but for some reason expect they cause Muslims a lot less duress than the Muslims there cause for the Christians of the area.

Like I said, if I was French, I wouldn't care about Muslims being around, but I would be concerned exactly how one would go back removing ISIS from their borders when they seem relatively intent on getting to France and recruiting from the general population.

Majority should never be punished for the crimes of minority.

Is this supported in the Quran?

 

[dust1n]

This is a fair question to ask of anyone who supports the Charlie Hebdo murderers as consistent with Islam, and the execution or banishment of apostates in states under sharia. It of course is ridiculous to ask in most contexts.

Thanks, I was hoping that was clear.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

This is a fair question to ask of anyone who supports the Charlie Hebdo murderers as consistent with Islam, and the execution or banishment of apostates in states under sharia. It of course is ridiculous to ask in most contexts.



I doubt that, but I don't care about the hereafter. I'm concerned with your support for their punishment in the here and now.





You would agree that anyone who is an apostate should be kicked out, right? Or killed? And further, that Islamic states should not tolerate anyone who blasphemes against the beloved prophet of Islam?

If you believe those things, then you have no principled basis for objecting to the hypothetical European exile (or execution) of Muslims as enemies of the state. It would simply be the application of the very logic you have used. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of Europeans (and Westerners in general) are committed to freedom of belief and expression, so they are willing to accept Muslims as equal members of their societies, having long ago abandoned the kind of savagery you are describing.

Within islamic country where the law is applied, i would have them(charlie hebdo within the land i rule, and the isis militants) executed if the power was within my hands. But as i told you before, that is not the debate here.
The killings happened in the land of disbelief,we as muslims should respect their laws, we cannot break our words on them.
So when the muslim comes to a land where others beside Allah swt are worshipped(lands of disbelief), the muslims are required to respect ther laws and to behave as good citizens. The muslims are required to be patient with attacks on their religion in the lands of disbelief, or to go to the court. But u cannot go around and kill them.

 

[dust1n]

So when the muslim comes to a land where others beside Allah swt are worshipped(lands of disbelief), the muslims are required to respect ther laws and to behave as good citizens. The muslims are required to be patient with attacks on their religion in the lands of disbelief, or to go to the court. But u cannot go around and kill them.

Well, thanks, that makes it much clearer I suppose. I don't think this is unreasonable.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

So is this not tantamount to saying that it was okay to kill to those people. "I don't support those one murders, but victims of those other murders had it coming." How else am I suppose to understand this other than sympathy with the gun men?



Hey bud, I'm all with you as opposed to USA being over in the Middle East at all since WWI. And I mean, no oil money to Saudi Arabia, no nothing. By the way, I'm not Christian, I'm an atheist, a crime in and of itself. I simply don't know what native Christian go about doing in the Middle East, but for some reason expect they cause Muslims a lot less duress than the Muslims there cause for the Christians of the area.

Like I said, if I was French, I wouldn't care about Muslims being around, but I would be concerned exactly how one would go back removing ISIS from their borders when they seem relatively intent on getting to France and recruiting from the general population.



Is this supported in the Quran?

I tell you again, the militants lived in france, and as muslims in the west(lands of kufr) we are required to abide by their laws. Its very simple as that.
Patience is the best weapon muslim can use when we live in the lands of kuffar.

 

[gsa]

Within islamic country where the law is applied, i would have them(charlie hebdo within the land i rule, and the isis militants) executed if the power was within my hands. But as i told you before, that is not the debate here.
The killings happened in the land of disbelief,we as muslims should respect their laws, we cannot break our words on them.
So when the muslim comes to a land where others beside Allah swt are worshipped(lands of disbelief), the muslims are required to respect ther laws and to behave as good citizens.

And again, using your logic, there is no principled reason to oppose the banishment or execution of Muslims, because there is no principled protection of freedom of thought and belief that you subscribe to. Applying your own logic, the Europeans would be perfectly justified in criminalizing Islam and expelling Muslims, and killing anyone who converts to the religion or has converted to the religion.

Indeed, there is no principled reason to oppose indiscriminate retaliation against Muslims who support the Charlie Hebdo attacks. After all, they are being provocative aren't they? So shouldn't they expect to be murdered for their provocation? They know that there are people in France who violently oppose them, after all.

This is the dark path your ideology will lead us down. I hope that you abandon it sooner rather than later.

 

[dust1n]

I tell you again, the militants lived in france, and as muslims in the west(lands of kufr) we are required to abide by their laws. Its very simple as that.
Patience is the best weapon muslim can use when we live in the lands of kuffar.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[dust1n]

And again, using your logic, there is no principled reason to oppose the banishment or execution of Muslims, because there is no principled protection of freedom of thought and belief that you subscribe to. Applying your own logic, the Europeans would be perfectly justified in criminalizing Islam and expelling Muslims, and killing anyone who converts to the religion or has converted to the religion.

That's what I was thinking. If the rules are established that atheists are to be executed for apostasy, then why would you expect to get any sort of benefit in a country that is basically secular, and many where atheism is large portion of the population?

 

[gsa]

Patience is the best weapon muslim can use when we live in the lands of kuffar.

What does that mean?

 

[dust1n]

What does that mean?

I'm assuming he means that Muslims in non Non-Islamic countries should practiced patience when it comes to, I guess, adversity towards their religion, as opposed to state-sanctioned execution.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

What does that mean?

Patience is more severe for people like wilders, charlie hebdo, ayaan. Ignoring them and observing patience.

 

[gsa]

I'm assuming he means that Muslims in non Non-Islamic countries should practiced patience when it comes to, I guess, adversity towards their religion, as opposed to state-sanctioned execution.

It could mean that. It could also mean subversion.