Teacher Beheaded near Paris

[Vee]

"next"?

Think of a brutal way to execute someone and chances are rather huge that ISIS already did it in the past few years.

You're right, but they didn't do it in Paris...

 

[Nakosis]

Did I say they were?



And that person waves a quran around to make his points.
If the book was unambiguous, stuff like this wouldn't happen.

Again, it interests me not what the "original meaning" was. It interests me not what some moderate believes the "correct interpretation" is. I have no emotional investment in making the book or religion look good. Neither to I have an emotional investment in making it look bad.

What I care about, is what happens in practice, in the real world.
And what I see, is that in every country where "shariah" is implemented.. brutality, barbarism, gruesome oppression, human rights violations, bad treatment of women,... are the norm rather then the exception.

What I see, is enormous numbers of radical muslims that do things like in the OP, or sympathize with it.

Today, christians are sold as the new peace and love hippies and "love one another" etc. And while I know of a LOT of christians that are instead pretty hateful and bigotted, we don't see the type of barbarism and brutality as we see in the islamic world. But people seem to have forgotten who the christians of the past were pretty much the same as these jihadi's are today in terms of barbaric and brutal.

Christianity throughout the ages has accomodated for extremes ranging from "peace and love for everyone" to "BURN THE HERETIC / HOMOSEXUAL / BLASPHEMER!!!".

Islam is no different.

ok, fair enough. I just don't see condemning a religion as a solution. Apparently, some people need this religious stuff for happiness/peace/sanity.

Me, I think this is likely not true but... I don't think it is an idea that can be forced on people. Though I'd recommend Buddhism even Buddhism has been used to inspire violence on the rare occasion.

Anyway, I do know of people that are helped by their religious beliefs. I'd be happy if folks could be weaned off religion, just don't see that as realistic.

 

[nPeace]

A man wielding a large knife attacked and beheaded a teacher near Paris. The teacher had shown caricatures of Mohammad in the classroom.

Can everyone agree that beheading someone for a caricature, even of Mohammad, is unreasonable and is to be condemned?

Perhaps he thinks it is God's will, or he is acting in behalf of God.
In Paris, there is a law against murder.
What though if Islamic state does not consider it murder, but an act of justice, and judgment by God... What now?

Perhaps this is an example of why we need a one world Government, that has one moral law code.
So that there are no cases where what's right or wrong, is determined by various people, and cultures.

For example, when it comes to what a person should be put to death for; how they are to die; if they are to die, the views change from culture to culture, land to land, continent to continent.

That would not be the case if there was universal law under one ruler.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

I'd like to continue this discussion after a while [since I'm wickedly busy atm], however, before I go, I'd like to point out something. I personally feel both Shadow Wolf and TagliatelliMonster have a point. I do agree with them to some extent. Religious scripture are quite ambiguous and often require personal interpretation, and occasionally it is interpreted by those who are inclined towards evil. These individuals DO interpreted these verses negatively to fit their own evil agenda. They tend to positively discard and/or twist things to fit their sick narrative. Take Tamerlane, for example. These are his own words [according to Chapman and Dowson in Elliot’s collection]:


"About the year 800 A.H. (1398 A.D.), there arose in my heart the desire to lead an expedition against the infidels and to become a Champion of the Faith, for it had reached my ears that the slayer of infidels is a Champion and that, if he is slain, he becomes a martyr. It was for this reason that I formed my resolution, but I was undetermined in my mind whether I should direct my expedition against the infidels of China or against the infidels and polytheists of India. In this matter I sought an omen from the Koran, and the verse to which I opened was this: “O Prophet, make war upon infidels and unbelievers, and treat them with severity.”

My chief officers told me that the inhabitants of Hindustan were infidels and unbelievers. In obedience to the mandate of Almighty God, I determined to make an expedition against them, and I issued orders to the amirs of mature years and to the leaders in war to assemble in my presence, and when they had come together, I questioned the assembly as to whether I should invade Hindustan or China, and said to them: “By the command of God and of His Prophet I needs must make war upon these infidels and polytheists.” Throwing themselves upon their knees, they all wished me good fortune. I then asked the warrior chieftains whether I should direct my expedition against the infidels of Hindustan or of China."


And THIS is why I think all Abrahamic religions are no longer needed and should be either abolished or reformed. These religions are useless to us and useless in the 21st century, and misinterpretation of these obsolete texts is doing more harm than benefit. Sanatana dharma is, thankfully, devoid of such mishap.

The attention of Abrahamic religions was focused solely on those specific people in that specific era, and it's absolutely obsolete/useless now. There are many other reasons I use to get this point across [like Qur'an challenge about producing a book like this can only be reasonably applied to the Arabs of that times, and is not applicable universally at this period of time as most people don't know Arab and/or not well-versed in it]. And the fact that there are over 70 versions of Islam and everyone is unsure which one is true.

However I'd like to talk about the points both Shadow Wolf and TagliatelliMonster has raised later on, I do have some objections which I'll share later.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sawing someone's head off with a dull knife is not the traditional method of execution by beheading anywhere. It was done using an extremely sharp (well, it was supposed to be) sword or a heavy axe in a quick strike. It was viewed as an honorable way to die. These modern jihadists are just trying to torture and scare people. They do not follow the Islamic laws of warfare. There is a long tradition of Muslim warriors (think Saladin) and these loons have nothing to do with that. You're not supposed to kill civilians, or women or children. This is dishonorable, at least.

Good to know.

I could write rage poetry right now. I want to join a metal band and stomp on fingers! I don't give 2 cents about this guy who got beheaded, but its sure does tick me off. I need to calm down!

 

[Wandering Monk]

A man wielding a large knife attacked and beheaded a teacher near Paris. The teacher had shown caricatures of Mohammad in the classroom.

Can everyone agree that beheading someone for a caricature, even of Mohammad, is unreasonable and is to be condemned?

Yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That’s exactly what I mean... his warped and twisted beliefs.

Warped and twisted, in your opinion, not in HIS opinion.

To that end, to fulfill his warped and twisted beliefs.

That doesn't make any sense to me.
Are you saying that he WANTED to behead people in the street and became a radical muslim because that gave him an excuse to do so??

I'ld say it is exactly the other way round. He wanted to behead this man as a result of his fundamentalist beliefs. If it wouldn't have been for those fundamentalist beliefs, he wouldn't want to cut people's heads of for showing a certain drawing.

No, what he thinks his religion requires.

That is true for everybody. Including Mother Theresa, Damiaan, Gandi, Bin Laden, Al-bagdadi,....
So yes: his religious beliefs.

Obviously he thinks his religious beliefs are correct. Isn't that the case for every religious believer?

No, what he thinks his religion requires. His religion doesn’t require that he believe it.

He disagrees. And millions along with him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're right, but they didn't do it in Paris...

But, as well know, they would if they could.
They certainly want to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ok, fair enough. I just don't see condemning a religion as a solution. Apparently, some people need this religious stuff for happiness/peace/sanity.

Me, I think this is likely not true but... I don't think it is an idea that can be forced on people. Though I'd recommend Buddhism even Buddhism has been used to inspire violence on the rare occasion.

Anyway, I do know of people that are helped by their religious beliefs. I'd be happy if folks could be weaned off religion, just don't see that as realistic.

Certainly not realistic.
But I like to speak my mind and say things like they are (imo).

Condemning "religion" is not a solution, sure.
Condemning anything isn't.

A solution would be to stop "just believing" things and instead let reason guide us.

We idd can't "force" people to stop "just believing" things.
But we sure can "educate the faith away". Reason should trump faith every single time.

But it's an utopia off course. It's never going to happen. Humans, like most animals, are extremely prone to superstition. So they will be superstitious and engage in irrational beliefs.

The problem is that irrational beliefs inevitably lead to irrational actions.
Sometimes irrational actions are harmless. Like believing that saying some latin words over a cracker is literally changing the cracker into a piece of the body of a 1st century jew.

Other times, they are extremely hurtful. Like believing that gay people or "blasphemers" or apostates must be killed no matter what.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

These individuals DO interpreted these verses negatively to fit their own evil agenda.

Other people have hinted to this also. I disagree with that.
It assumes they had an evil agenda beforehand and are merely using the religious interpretation as an excuse to follow through. But what we see in reality is not like that at all. I'm sure you can find some examples of true psychopaths who do such things, but in general? Not at all...

Bin Laden didn't used to be a monster. He became one through radical islam.

Salah Abdeslam wasn't a monster either. He sure wasn't a saint. He engaged in some minor crimes like petty theft or selling weed (I'm actually quite sure I bought weed from him through a third party back in the day). But he NEVER did anything that even REMOTELY resembled the horror of the Paris attacks. I was completely amazed and shocked when his name and face started popping up in the news. And it's pretty much the same for most all "foreign ISIS fighters". Examples enough in my country alone. Also native Belgians. Good kids that didn't get into trouble. Encountered radical islam and overtime, went through the same transformation of "normal good kid" to "kalashnikov wearing killing machine".

It's radical islam that turned them into such monsters.
They didn't go to radical islam just to have an excuse to satisfy their desire of doing monstrous things.... It's the other way round.

It's like that infamous saying goes:

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

However I'd like to talk about the points both Shadow Wolf and TagliatelliMonster has raised later on, I do have some objections which I'll share later.

I'm looking forward to it. ;-)

 

[Jainarayan]

Warped and twisted, in your opinion, not in HIS opinion.



That doesn't make any sense to me.
Are you saying that he WANTED to behead people in the street and became a radical muslim because that gave him an excuse to do so??

I'ld say it is exactly the other way round. He wanted to behead this man as a result of his fundamentalist beliefs. If it wouldn't have been for those fundamentalist beliefs, he wouldn't want to cut people's heads of for showing a certain drawing.




That is true for everybody. Including Mother Theresa, Damiaan, Gandi, Bin Laden, Al-bagdadi,....
So yes: his religious beliefs.

Obviously he thinks his religious beliefs are correct. Isn't that the case for every religious believer?



He disagrees. And millions along with him.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? You keep asking me questions, I answer, you don’t agree, ask more, and around and around we go. How many more times and in how many ways can I answer the same questions and their variations? It should be clear by now what I think.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I say the results. The fruits of what is being taught is enough to condemn.

Condemn, yes, but you cannot say they are incorrectly following their religion. It still doesn't remove the fact they are teaching heinous acts of violence that are taught in their holy books.

 

[Cooky]

A man wielding a large knife attacked and beheaded a teacher near Paris. The teacher had shown caricatures of Mohammad in the classroom.

Can everyone agree that beheading someone for a caricature, even of Mohammad, is unreasonable and is to be condemned?

But the prophet's (PBUH) image is sacred. It must be protected!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A man wielding a large knife attacked and beheaded a teacher near Paris. The teacher had shown caricatures of Mohammad in the classroom.

Can everyone agree that beheading someone for a caricature, even of Mohammad, is unreasonable and is to be condemned?

 

[Cooky]

...Now we know the POWER we're dealing with, when we do anti-Islamic things! We better not anymore!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, what he thinks his religion requires. His religion doesn’t require that he believe it.

He believes it does though. In his eyes, he was following Islam more truthfully and fully than those who sit back and do nothing against those who blaspheme against Islam.
It's no different with Christians. Some believe they are required to oppose homosexuality. Some believe they are required to butt out. Neither group can be proven accurate or demonstrated correct (it tends to happen when people follow books riddled with contradictions).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

...Now we know the POWER we're dealing with, when we do anti-Islamic things! We better not anymore!

Miserable little bullies with little minds and making big noises to try to scare us. They like to believe they have power, but it begins and ends at their campaigns of fear.

 

[Nakosis]

Condemn, yes, but you cannot say they are incorrectly following their religion. It still doesn't remove the fact they are teaching heinous acts of violence that are taught in their holy books.

I was going to ask you about that. Passages you are referring to, but...

"But when the forbidden months are past,
then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them,
and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war);
but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them:
for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

 

[syo]

This is evil.

THIS

 

[Jainarayan]

He believes it does though. In his eyes, he was following Islam more truthfully and fully than those who sit back and do nothing against those who blaspheme against Islam.
It's no different with Christians. Some believe they are required to oppose homosexuality. Some believe they are required to butt out.

They’re simply deranged zealots.

Neither group can be proven accurate or demonstrated correct (it tends to happen when people follow books riddled with contradictions).

Not true. People think that the versions of their holy books they read are how they were written, received, revealed. Not so. Every translation and interpretation is a reflection of the translator. Every translator has an agenda, good or bad. I have only a meager knowledge of Sanskrit but some verses of the Bhagavad Gita’s translations have even me saying “What!? No, that’s not what it says”. There is no word “supersoul” in Sanskrit but that’s a word Prabhupada uses. No other translator does. Short version: people take their scriptures at face value and think that’s what they really say. So yes, they can be proven accurate, inaccurate, right or wrong.