Is Islam Responsible for the Charlie Hebdo Murders?

[YmirGF]

Come join me in a private chat though. It will be a more productive forum.

How odd, I wouldn't have thought you to have masochistic tendencies.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I don't see any other religion killing each other in the name of god or a warlord named Muhammad now a days except one... (that's so dark-ages)

The one we all see on the news.

They have all had their day. Christopher Hitchens discusses a lot of messed up behavior perpetuated by religions throughout the years in "God is Not great".

 

[Ouroboros]

What is amazing to me is that now, twice in one week, I have debated with myself on whether to utilize the ignore feature on two new RF acquaintances. It's amazing because I've never seriously thought of ignoring given posters permanently in all the years I've been here.

So, yeah, kudo's on the thread hijacking for a driveling narrative.

I see the ignore function as very useful to filter out noise. Some members just post trash and useless drivel (as you say), and I don't have time to even bother about what they're saying. (And obviously, you're not on the list. For obvious reasons. You do have sensible and educative things to share. )

 

[Ouroboros]

One great thing about the software they use here on RF is that once someone is on ignore, you never even know they're posting. They just vanish entirely. Other forums, you still see the posts go by, they're just blocked with "You are ignoring this user". Good job, whoever wrote the software and kudos to RF for using it.

Yeah. I love it! It's like they don't even exist anymore. On occasion, when I feel curious, I click on the "Show Ignored Content" at the bottom of the page.

 

[gsa]

There are plenty of calls to violence across Islam and Christianity so it is profoundly dishonest to say that xtian and Muslim terrorists are not following the real religion.

That being said each person interprets their religious texts how they choose. To say my interpretation is correct and someone else's is not because they ignore a different part than you is also dishonest.

Also considering religions are "living", evolving entities (not the same today as it was 500 years ago) it is also meaningless to say that they are not following the true religion.

Those men would not have attacked charlie hebdo if they were not Muslims. This does not mean all Muslims are like that, this does not mean that all branches of Islam teach this way. But some do and they are part of the religion as well.

In the end people have died. Their families weep for the loss of their loved ones. Those who choose to defend their religion rather than condemn those terrorists show a profound lack of empathy.

And yet there were many who chose to defend their religion, and chose victim blaming, including the pope. This incident has revealed a deep dividing line over religious sensibilities and murderous pretexts.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There are plenty of calls to violence across Islam and Christianity so it is profoundly dishonest to say that xtian and Muslim terrorists are not following the real religion.

Yeah, that Jesus was a huge terrorist and warlord.

 

[gsa]

Yeah, that Jesus was a huge terrorist and warlord.

Whether Jesus did or not, there's plenty of language in both the OT and the NT that is violent. I agree that the Quran is more systematic and violent, but it is present in Christianity as well.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Whether Jesus did or not, there's plenty of language in both the OT and the NT that is violent. I agree that the Quran is more systematic and violent, but it is present in Christianity as well.

Here's an article I think you may be interested in: Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam? :: Middle East Quarterly

Mind you, I don't think God actually commanded anyone to commit genocide. Not that it actually happened, away.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The very first step to overcoming any obstacle in life is acceptance and admission of ones lack of understanding or knowledge of any given subject or obstacle that they are trying to overcome.

This is true, and I'm glad to see you're accepting that fact.

In Religion one has to accept that they are a sinner and have sinned before God can help them.

Well, now, that would depend entirely on the religion, wouldn't it?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheism like Radical Islam is dangerous. (prepared to kill and godless/non-believers who do not value life as "sacred")

Fascinatingly shallow assertion. I would suggest that people kill for what they believe in (be it political, idealogical, religious, etc) not for what they DON'T.
Communist pogroms, vile as they were, were driven by political philosophy. You'd have to be (literally) psychotic to kill someone for something you don't believe in. It's a nonsense.

Atheism in and of itself provides exactly zero motivation to kill. Since atheism is not a positive claim, it would be intelligent to consider the positive claims made by any particular atheist in order to determine what they actually DO believe about the world. Focusing on something they DON'T believe and assuming this is informative is a fairly ignorant manner in which to go about a risk assessment.

 

[Robert Vincelette]

An atheist blogger at Patheos says yes:

Sure, Saudi Arabia’s government is solely at fault when it executes someone for speaking out against it. But you can’t blame the government alone for Saudi blogger Raif Badawi’s sentence of 1,000 lashes and ten years in prison for the crime of insulting Islam. To do so is an insult to Badawi and the countless others killed in the name of blasphemy, like those at Charlie Hebdo.

Werleman knows politics, and he is often correct about the political climate in the US and elsewhere. He is also often correct about the steps we need to take politically to ease tensions and remove a powerful recruitment method from these extremists. But he seems too wrapped up in his own ideological position to see the damage done by ignoring all of the problems of Islam, thereby exempting it from any responsibility.

While there seems to be a growing number of non-Muslim Islam apologists, this rule of “anything but Islam” does not seem to transfer to all religions, making the argument even more spurious. When Christians attack an abortion clinic and say they were inspired by religious belief, we take them at their word and rely on moderate, liberal Christians to speak out and condemn such actions. But when Muslims chant religious text while blowing themselves up or gunning down a magazine staff, and then religious terrorist groups take credit for the attack, the faux-liberal Islamic apologists claim religion had nothing to do with it. Anyone who claims otherwise a racist and Islamophobic. If we continue to ignore religion’s influence on Islamic extremism we are allowing these groups carte blanche to exploit religion as one of the most effective recruitment tools in their struggle for power.

What do you think? Does Dan Arel have a point?

I do not know whether Mohammed would be sickened and denounce as blasphemy the murders committed in his name. All I know is that fundamentalism or the belief one can possess perfect truth about God turns people into monsters. Perhaps there are faithful who would make a movie about the life of this prophet who is visited by Satan who tries to tempt him into giving up by gloating how he will hijack Islam and fool followers to serve Satan.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Whether Jesus did or not, there's plenty of language in both the OT and the NT that is violent. I agree that the Quran is more systematic and violent, but it is present in Christianity as well.

"Quran is me systematic and violent"???

It is true that Muslim extremists do a huge disservice to Islam by their condemnable actions. It is also true that they seem not to have read the Qur'an in honesty. And so ... it is true for Islamophobes.

Did neither read that according to the Qur'an:

[Qur'an 3:187] "... you shall surely hear many hurtful things from those who were given the Book before you and from those who set up equals to God. But if you show fortitude and act righteously, that indeed is a matter of strong determination."

Or as Charlie Hebdo did:

[Qur'an 6:69] "And when you see those who trifle with our signs then turn thou away from them until then engage in a discourse other than that and if Satan cause thee to forget then sit not, after recollection, with the unjust people."

In his own time, Muhammadﷺ was faced with the worse forms of blasphemy. What was his response? For example, it is recorded in the Qur'an:

[Qur'an 63:9] "They say, ‘If we return to Medina, the one most honourable will surely drive out therefrom the one most mean;’ while true honour belongs to Allah and to His Messenger and the believers; but the hypocrites know not."

Abdallah bin Ubayy said this ... referring to himself as most honourable and Muhammadﷺ as most dishonourable (God forbid). What happened to him? How was he punished? And Bonus: who read his funeral?

Systematic? Please.

 

[JacobEzra.]

What exactly is "Islamic ideology "? There are many ideologies that claim islam.

As for the Charlie Hebdo attac, I'd blame Saudi Arabian salafi ideology

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Islam doesn't make anybody do bad things. It's an idea and it depends on the person. The person is responsible, not the idea itself.

 

[fiat lux]

Of course not, what a stupid question!

 

[Looncall]

Of course not, what a stupid question!

Yet the murderers shouted islamic slogans. Islam must have at least provided some kind of rationale for what they did.

 

[Maranatha]

I personally think that Islam, as a whole (let's say as an ideology), would probably hold some responsibility for these terrible acts, in the same way that a Father may feel, if his son had commited murder. The Father would not be legally guilty and in most people's eyes morally guilty of anything, but is he likely to wonder why his son done this, and ask himself if it was his (the Father's) fault, did it happen due to how he raised his son, etc, etc.

Murderous acts that take place under a distorted, misguided interpretation of Islam unfortunately do create a link, a bridge to Islam itself; but of course we need to approach this maturely and rationally. Where there are millions of peaceful, sane, 'normal' follows of Islam then we cannot carte blanche claim that "Islam did this".

Essentially, some people's human condition is very negative and destructive. Perhaps due to how they were raised, or painful things that have happened in their lives that have shaped them, or maybe due to genetic dispositions that make they that way. If their condition is that way, then they are likely to be attracted to a 'justification system' that allows them to vent and express their anger at life and society.

 

[fiat lux]

Yet the murderers shouted islamic slogans. Islam must have at least provided some kind of rationale for what they did.

The deranged and moronic, may find a "rationale" for justifying absolutely anything.

 

[Maranatha]

Islam doesn't make anybody do bad things. It's an idea and it depends on the person. The person is responsible, not the idea itself.

I can partially agree, but then the Quran does contain some elements that could be considered morally questionable by today's global standards. Therefore I wouldn't say that it's a perfectly neutral ideology. It has a certain potential or propensity to be a little more prone to attract violent and misguided personal interpretations.

The fact that violent Islamists can quote (misguidedly, but still quote) passages from the Quran on Jihad, etc, that justify (again misguidedly) their violent actions, sort of proves this.

If you look at the violent actions of the Buddhist Nationalists in Burma/Myanmar - they could not possibly quote a single word from The Buddha, or from the Pali Canon or Buddhist Mahayana Sutras, that could reasonably be claimed to justify their actions. You won't hear these people attacking people with sticks (as they have been) while shouting "Om mani padme hum"! ....... so although there are some 'violent Buddhists' in the world - they can't use Buddhism or it's teachings to justify their violence, whereas violent Islamists can quite comfortably find words in the Quran that they can radicalize or distort to justify violence.

 

[fiat lux]

@ Maranatha: Violent actions can be justified within the Buddhist canon, there are in fact the wrathful deities; the dharampalas, or defenders of Buddhism, divinities with the rank of Bodhisattva who wage war without any mercy against the enemies of Buddhism.
I'm not sure of the circumstances of the recent events in Burma, but defence of the dharma can be acceptable.
In Burma most Buddhists spend some point in their lives as a monk, often for short periods e.g. 'monsoon monks'. not everyone you see in robes are of similar commitment.