I have no problem with people practicing what ever religion they want. But when practicing that religion if it means that they impact what I can read, say, write, or that they seek to kill or maim me because I think their beliefs are utter nonsense then I have a slight problem.
Didn't want to wade in here but are you serious?! These people are not representing Muslims globally who 'practice their religion'. They are nutters who kill people. One of my sons best friends at school is a Muslim and his parents are lovely people. They didn't leave a letter bomb in his party bag so I won't question my safety just yet thank you.
I think you are missing the point. Self-evidently most Muslims are not murderers and presumably do not harbour murderous intent. No doubt terrorism has complex origins and therefore complex and long term solutions but Islam has a problem that it needs to resolve about how it relates to society in the 21st Century. A brilliant book about the decline of violence in the Western World that covers this and much besides is "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steve Pinker. Long, but well worth the effort.
Today, world leaders and religious leaders and a million European citizens are marching for the basic rights of freedom of thought and expression. But, as one of a rapidly growing number of atheists in the modern free world (and I would bet a sizeable proportion of today’s marchers are avowed atheists) I feel strongly that, on this particular day, they don’t represent me, nor do they represent a large proportion of the marchers and the millions of atheist who now exist in Europe. I am going to hear a lot of meaningless platitudes from leaders at the march and religious spokesmen in various television studios talking about how it is important that all religions get on and respect each other (as if the problem was as simple as that) and it is going to make my blood boil. If Richard Dawkins has not been invited to this march as one of the leading European atheists to represent me and the millions of atheists in Europe I sincerely hope that he and other leading atheists are invited to all the TV studios to sit alongside the religious spokes people and be allowed the same amount of air time.
Europe needs a second reformation. I hope today sparks off a rapid escalation in the atheist movement and it receives a massive increase in donations across Europe so it can fight this growing cancer in our society.
Don't want a set of rules for atheists or a movement either. If I did I'd join a religion.
Understand and appreciate all the other points you make. And I know you are a very articulate, respected and intelligent poster on here. But I have no idea what you mean here. Surely this statement is completely contradictory.
I have no problem with people practicing what ever religion they want. But when practicing that religion if it means that they impact what I can read, say, write, or that they seek to kill or maim me because I think their beliefs are utter nonsense then I have a slight problem.
Didn't want to wade in here but are you serious?! These people are not representing Muslims globally who 'practice their religion'. They are nutters who kill people. One of my sons best friends at school is a Muslim and his parents are lovely people. They didn't leave a letter bomb in his party bag so I won't question my safety just yet thank you.
I think you are missing the point. Self-evidently most Muslims are not murderers and presumably do not harbour murderous intent. No doubt terrorism has complex origins and therefore complex and long term solutions but Islam has a problem that it needs to resolve about how it relates to society in the 21st Century. A brilliant book about the decline of violence in the Western World that covers this and much besides is "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steve Pinker. Long, but well worth the effort.
Yes I get that. And I get that there is an extremist element (a very minute one) that is associating with a religion whether or not the vast majority are practicing it perfectly peacefully.
But it isn't a case of a whole religion taking a look at itself. These nutters are not all of a sudden going to down weapons because prominent Muslim figures round the world tell them to.
What worries me is that there is hate brewing both ways now. Will we see revenge attacks on mosques? Probably yes - and that is what scares me.
I genuinely think (and 100pc I do not necessarily mean anyone that has posted recently) that over the last few days, there are people on this board that wouldn't be happy if there child was friends with a Muslim child.
And, in what is only my opinion of course, that is a worrying trend.
To be honest Red your post did seem to imply that Richard Dawkins was an equivalent to the Archbishop of Canterbury in terms of representing "atheists" I'm not sure I consider myself part of a "movement" but a confirmed atheist yes.
Today, world leaders and religious leaders and a million European citizens are marching for the basic rights of freedom of thought and expression. But, as one of a rapidly growing number of atheists in the modern free world (and I would bet a sizeable proportion of today’s marchers are avowed atheists) I feel strongly that, on this particular day, they don’t represent me, nor do they represent a large proportion of the marchers and the millions of atheist who now exist in Europe. I am going to hear a lot of meaningless platitudes from leaders at the march and religious spokesmen in various television studios talking about how it is important that all religions get on and respect each other (as if the problem was as simple as that) and it is going to make my blood boil. If Richard Dawkins has not been invited to this march as one of the leading European atheists to represent me and the millions of atheists in Europe I sincerely hope that he and other leading atheists are invited to all the TV studios to sit alongside the religious spokes people and be allowed the same amount of air time.
Europe needs a second reformation. I hope today sparks off a rapid escalation in the atheist movement and it receives a massive increase in donations across Europe so it can fight this growing cancer in our society.
One of the joys of being an atheist is NOT Belonging to "movement".
I don't want to be represented by Richard Dawkins or any one else as a leader of atheists.
Don't want a set of rules for atheists or a movement either. If I did I'd join a religion.
As Patti sang "my sins are my own, they belong to me"
I often think it is the other way around. One of the advantages of religious belief is the practical sense of community it offers. Obviously an absence of belief in something (e.g. atheism) is no basis for organising any kind of community but I do think we lack structures for sharing and celebrating secular belief systems. The 'Sunday Assembly' is a response to that. I agree there is a risk of 'group think' that any rational free thinker will be wary of. It's a tricky one.
Atheism in some can generate feelings of isolation. Just take a look at any Pagan / Atheist forum to read the uncontrolled rantings against organised religions. Atheism has it's own extremes, but thankfully mainly in word and not deed. I have no religion, but I do have faith, plus a belief in my fellow man to do the right thing. And even though world events such as this may tell me us give up hope, hope is all we have, and I for one will not relinquish my hold on it. Faith over religion every time.
I think some of the Reporters need some sleep if they really believed that Hayat Boumeddiene was in the supermarket with Armedy Coulibaly and escaped when the front and back doors had hundreds of police and army ?
I thought this at the time and this morning they now think she left Paris on the 2nd of Jan, so she would have been long gone before he killed the policewoman.
The truth is hard to find in this 24/7 rolling mass media world, should it not be easier?
Whilst I am classed as Christian, and wouldn't class myself as an atheist, I wouldn't say I am overly religious. I don't go to church every week but I got married in one and my son was christened in one (as the other will be).
I would be genuinely interested if any of the more serious atheists celebrated Christmas in any way?
I have no problem with people practicing what ever religion they want. But when practicing that religion if it means that they impact what I can read, say, write, or that they seek to kill or maim me because I think their beliefs are utter nonsense then I have a slight problem.
Didn't want to wade in here but are you serious?! These people are not representing Muslims globally who 'practice their religion'. They are nutters who kill people. One of my sons best friends at school is a Muslim and his parents are lovely people. They didn't leave a letter bomb in his party bag so I won't question my safety just yet thank you.
I think you are missing the point. Self-evidently most Muslims are not murderers and presumably do not harbour murderous intent. No doubt terrorism has complex origins and therefore complex and long term solutions but Islam has a problem that it needs to resolve about how it relates to society in the 21st Century. A brilliant book about the decline of violence in the Western World that covers this and much besides is "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steve Pinker. Long, but well worth the effort.
Yes I get that. And I get that there is an extremist element (a very minute one) that is associating with a religion whether or not the vast majority are practicing it perfectly peacefully.
But it isn't a case of a whole religion taking a look at itself. These nutters are not all of a sudden going to down weapons because prominent Muslim figures round the world tell them to.
What worries me is that there is hate brewing both ways now. Will we see revenge attacks on mosques? Probably yes - and that is what scares me.
I genuinely think (and 100pc I do not necessarily mean anyone that has posted recently) that over the last few days, there are people on this board that wouldn't be happy if there child was friends with a Muslim child.
And, in what is only my opinion of course, that is a worrying trend.
I think Islam does need to look at itself (although Islam is not a homogenous set of ideals, as is clear from the way different sects are at war with each other). If I said the West needs to look at its attitude to the Middle East would you feel I was tarring everyone in the West with the same brush? I agree with you that whatever the solution it won't lead to a sudden cessation of violence, and that hatred generated on either side of the argument is never justified.
Whilst I am classed as Christian, and wouldn't class myself as an atheist, I wouldn't say I am overly religious. I don't go to church every week but I got married in one and my son was christened in one (as the other will be).
I would be genuinely interested if any of the more serious atheists celebrated Christmas in any way?
Of course I celebrated Christmas but just the secular bits.
We atheists get all the best bits : -)
Don't feel at all isolated either but I come from an atheist background.
Whilst I am classed as Christian, and wouldn't class myself as an atheist, I wouldn't say I am overly religious. I don't go to church every week but I got married in one and my son was christened in one (as the other will be).
I would be genuinely interested if any of the more serious atheists celebrated Christmas in any way?
You mean the pagan mid-Winter celebration that Christianity co-opted for its own purposes? I loved every minute of it.
Whilst I am classed as Christian, and wouldn't class myself as an atheist, I wouldn't say I am overly religious. I don't go to church every week but I got married in one and my son was christened in one (as the other will be).
I would be genuinely interested if any of the more serious atheists celebrated Christmas in any way?
I always enjoy the annual Xmas holiday. Obviously in a completely non religious way. I have no problem with the many religious events/festivals I witness at this time. In fact, I would really miss witnessing such events/festivals if they stopped.
Yes I get that. And I get that there is an extremist element (a very minute one) that is associating with a religion whether or not the vast majority are practicing it perfectly peacefully.
But it isn't a case of a whole religion taking a look at itself. These nutters are not all of a sudden going to down weapons because prominent Muslim figures round the world tell them to.
What worries me is that there is hate brewing both ways now. Will we see revenge attacks on mosques? Probably yes - and that is what scares me.
I genuinely think (and 100pc I do not necessarily mean anyone that has posted recently) that over the last few days, there are people on this board that wouldn't be happy if there child was friends with a Muslim child.
And, in what is only my opinion of course, that is a worrying trend.
Sorry Damo, but I think it is, and I believe a move is currently underway in Turkey to try to produce an acceptable (to muslims) Koran for the modern age. The goal of these radicals is to introduce sharia law as far and as wide as possible. The West in being subservient and welcoming, is seen as being a weak and willing enemy by these people, easy targets if you like. The question is, would the large Muslim population in the Western World vote to outlaw sharia law if it were ever to come to that, or would the millions of "moderate" muslims side with their religion? Remember Muslims are not permitted to renounce their religion and will suffer a terrible fate if they do. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has done so, and is now living in fear of her life. Please read this by Ayaan Hirsi Ali that I posted earlier. It's frightening and it explains the agenda and how the West needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Sorry, yes, here it is. Sorry AFKA, please delete if not permitted.
How to Answer the Paris Terror Attack The West must stand up for freedom—and acknowledge the link between Islamists’ political ideology and their religious beliefs.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali Jan. 7, 2015 6:08 p.m. ET
After the horrific massacre Wednesday at the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, perhaps the West will finally put away its legion of useless tropes trying to deny the relationship between violence and radical Islam.
This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman. This was not an “un-Islamic” attack by a bunch of thugs—the perpetrators could be heard shouting that they were avenging the Prophet Muhammad. Nor was it spontaneous. It was planned to inflict maximum damage, during a staff meeting, with automatic weapons and a getaway plan. It was designed to sow terror, and in that it has worked.
The West is duly terrified. But it should not be surprised.
If there is a lesson to be drawn from such a grisly episode, it is that what we believe about Islam truly doesn’t matter. This type of violence, jihad, is what they, the Islamists, believe.
There are numerous calls to violent jihad in the Quran. But the Quran is hardly alone. In too much of Islam, jihad is a thoroughly modern concept. The 20th-century jihad “bible,” and an animating work for many Islamist groups today, is “The Quranic Concept of War,” a book written in the mid-1970s by Pakistani Gen. S.K. Malik. He argues that because God, Allah, himself authored every word of the Quran, the rules of war contained in the Quran are of a higher caliber than the rules developed by mere mortals.
In Malik’s analysis of Quranic strategy, the human soul—and not any physical battlefield—is the center of conflict. The key to victory, taught by Allah through the military campaigns of the Prophet Muhammad, is to strike at the soul of your enemy. And the best way to strike at your enemy’s soul is through terror. Terror, Malik writes, is “the point where the means and the end meet.” Terror, he adds, “is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose.”
Those responsible for the slaughter in Paris, just like the man who killed the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, are seeking to impose terror. And every time we give in to their vision of justified religious violence, we are giving them exactly what they want.
In Islam, it is a grave sin to visually depict or in any way slander the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims are free to believe this, but why should such a prohibition be forced on nonbelievers? In the U.S., Mormons didn’t seek to impose the death penalty on those who wrote and produced “The Book of Mormon,” a satirical Broadway sendup of their faith. Islam, with 1,400 years of history and some 1.6 billion adherents, should be able to withstand a few cartoons by a French satirical magazine. But of course deadly responses to cartoons depicting Muhammad are nothing new in the age of jihad.
Moreover, despite what the Quran may teach, not all sins can be considered equal. The West must insist that Muslims, particularly members of the Muslim diaspora, answer this question: What is more offensive to a believer—the murder, torture, enslavement and acts of war and terrorism being committed today in the name of Muhammad, or the production of drawings and films and books designed to mock the extremists and their vision of what Muhammad represents?
To answer the late Gen. Malik, our soul in the West lies in our belief in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. The freedom to express our concerns, the freedom to worship who we want, or not to worship at all—such freedoms are the soul of our civilization. And that is precisely where the Islamists have attacked us. Again.
How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.
This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.
What do we get in return? Kalashnikovs in the heart of Paris. The more we oblige, the more we self-censor, the more we appease, the bolder the enemy gets.
There can only be one answer to this hideous act of jihad against the staff of Charlie Hebdo. It is the obligation of the Western media and Western leaders, religious and lay, to protect the most basic rights of freedom of expression, whether in satire on any other form. The West must not appease, it must not be silenced. We must send a united message to the terrorists: Your violence cannot destroy our soul.
Ms. Hirsi Ali, a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, is the author of “Infidel” (2007). Her latest book, “Heretic: The Case for a Muslim Reformation,” will be published in April by HarperCollins
The march is a great show of unity but Where are the leaders of Saudi Arabi And China. The great friends of the western powers.
Raif Badawi have been sentenced to 1000 lashes and 10 years in prison for being a one man Charlie Hebdo in Saudi Arabia plus women being arrested for wanting to drive. In Iran a woman got arrested for watching a basketball match. In Pakistan Malala Yousufzal shot for going to school. In China People go missing everyday who Question their leaders.
Freedom of speech is for the minority of the world.
Sorry, yes, here it is. Sorry AFKA, please delete if not permitted.
How to Answer the Paris Terror Attack The West must stand up for freedom—and acknowledge the link between Islamists’ political ideology and their religious beliefs.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali Jan. 7, 2015 6:08 p.m. ET
After the horrific massacre Wednesday at the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, perhaps the West will finally put away its legion of useless tropes trying to deny the relationship between violence and radical Islam.
This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman. This was not an “un-Islamic” attack by a bunch of thugs—the perpetrators could be heard shouting that they were avenging the Prophet Muhammad. Nor was it spontaneous. It was planned to inflict maximum damage, during a staff meeting, with automatic weapons and a getaway plan. It was designed to sow terror, and in that it has worked.
The West is duly terrified. But it should not be surprised.
If there is a lesson to be drawn from such a grisly episode, it is that what we believe about Islam truly doesn’t matter. This type of violence, jihad, is what they, the Islamists, believe.
There are numerous calls to violent jihad in the Quran. But the Quran is hardly alone. In too much of Islam, jihad is a thoroughly modern concept. The 20th-century jihad “bible,” and an animating work for many Islamist groups today, is “The Quranic Concept of War,” a book written in the mid-1970s by Pakistani Gen. S.K. Malik. He argues that because God, Allah, himself authored every word of the Quran, the rules of war contained in the Quran are of a higher caliber than the rules developed by mere mortals.
In Malik’s analysis of Quranic strategy, the human soul—and not any physical battlefield—is the center of conflict. The key to victory, taught by Allah through the military campaigns of the Prophet Muhammad, is to strike at the soul of your enemy. And the best way to strike at your enemy’s soul is through terror. Terror, Malik writes, is “the point where the means and the end meet.” Terror, he adds, “is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose.”
Those responsible for the slaughter in Paris, just like the man who killed the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, are seeking to impose terror. And every time we give in to their vision of justified religious violence, we are giving them exactly what they want.
In Islam, it is a grave sin to visually depict or in any way slander the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims are free to believe this, but why should such a prohibition be forced on nonbelievers? In the U.S., Mormons didn’t seek to impose the death penalty on those who wrote and produced “The Book of Mormon,” a satirical Broadway sendup of their faith. Islam, with 1,400 years of history and some 1.6 billion adherents, should be able to withstand a few cartoons by a French satirical magazine. But of course deadly responses to cartoons depicting Muhammad are nothing new in the age of jihad.
Moreover, despite what the Quran may teach, not all sins can be considered equal. The West must insist that Muslims, particularly members of the Muslim diaspora, answer this question: What is more offensive to a believer—the murder, torture, enslavement and acts of war and terrorism being committed today in the name of Muhammad, or the production of drawings and films and books designed to mock the extremists and their vision of what Muhammad represents?
To answer the late Gen. Malik, our soul in the West lies in our belief in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. The freedom to express our concerns, the freedom to worship who we want, or not to worship at all—such freedoms are the soul of our civilization. And that is precisely where the Islamists have attacked us. Again.
How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.
This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.
What do we get in return? Kalashnikovs in the heart of Paris. The more we oblige, the more we self-censor, the more we appease, the bolder the enemy gets.
There can only be one answer to this hideous act of jihad against the staff of Charlie Hebdo. It is the obligation of the Western media and Western leaders, religious and lay, to protect the most basic rights of freedom of expression, whether in satire on any other form. The West must not appease, it must not be silenced. We must send a united message to the terrorists: Your violence cannot destroy our soul.
Ms. Hirsi Ali, a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, is the author of “Infidel” (2007). Her latest book, “Heretic: The Case for a Muslim Reformation,” will be published in April by HarperCollins
That is frightening. I have no idea where all this will lead.
Whilst I am classed as Christian, and wouldn't class myself as an atheist, I wouldn't say I am overly religious. I don't go to church every week but I got married in one and my son was christened in one (as the other will be).
I would be genuinely interested if any of the more serious atheists celebrated Christmas in any way?
I did ! I like the music (Cliff Richard excepted) the decorations, the food, the family get together, the excitement of boxing day football (before the result comes in) the whole pre christmas build up, my daughters excitement. Everthing really. I'm atheist. Christmas is just a Christian thing tacked onto a pagan festival, and I believe I saw on Big Bang Theory, Isaac newtons's birthday. Who cares, it's a celebration so I go with it.
Whilst I am classed as Christian, and wouldn't class myself as an atheist, I wouldn't say I am overly religious. I don't go to church every week but I got married in one and my son was christened in one (as the other will be).
I would be genuinely interested if any of the more serious atheists celebrated Christmas in any way?
I'm a Christian and to be honest the true meaning of Christmas in this country has mainly disappeared, it's essentially a secular celebration now and that's fair enough, it means that all religions & atheists can enjoy it too - Easter is far more important anyway.
Whilst I am classed as Christian, and wouldn't class myself as an atheist, I wouldn't say I am overly religious. I don't go to church every week but I got married in one and my son was christened in one (as the other will be).
I would be genuinely interested if any of the more serious atheists celebrated Christmas in any way?
I'm a Christian and to be honest the true meaning of Christmas in this country has mainly disappeared, it's essentially a secular celebration now and that's fair enough, it means that all religions & atheists can enjoy it too - Easter is far more important anyway.
Whilst I am classed as Christian, and wouldn't class myself as an atheist, I wouldn't say I am overly religious. I don't go to church every week but I got married in one and my son was christened in one (as the other will be).
I would be genuinely interested if any of the more serious atheists celebrated Christmas in any way?
I'm a Christian and to be honest the true meaning of Christmas in this country has mainly disappeared, it's essentially a secular celebration now and that's fair enough, it means that all religions & atheists can enjoy it too - Easter is far more important anyway.
Not to atheists it isnt
Quite, my comment was in response to a Christian asking how many atheists celebrated Christmas, my point being that increasingly the popular aspects of that celebration are becoming more and more secular.
Whilst I am classed as Christian, and wouldn't class myself as an atheist, I wouldn't say I am overly religious. I don't go to church every week but I got married in one and my son was christened in one (as the other will be).
I would be genuinely interested if any of the more serious atheists celebrated Christmas in any way?
I'm a Christian and to be honest the true meaning of Christmas in this country has mainly disappeared, it's essentially a secular celebration now and that's fair enough, it means that all religions & atheists can enjoy it too - Easter is far more important anyway.
Comments
But it isn't a case of a whole religion taking a look at itself. These nutters are not all of a sudden going to down weapons because prominent Muslim figures round the world tell them to.
What worries me is that there is hate brewing both ways now. Will we see revenge attacks on mosques? Probably yes - and that is what scares me.
I genuinely think (and 100pc I do not necessarily mean anyone that has posted recently) that over the last few days, there are people on this board that wouldn't be happy if there child was friends with a Muslim child.
And, in what is only my opinion of course, that is a worrying trend.
I would be genuinely interested if any of the more serious atheists celebrated Christmas in any way?
We atheists get all the best bits : -)
Don't feel at all isolated either but I come from an atheist background.
Yes I get that. And I get that there is an extremist element (a very minute one) that is associating with a religion whether or not the vast majority are practicing it perfectly peacefully.
But it isn't a case of a whole religion taking a look at itself. These nutters are not all of a sudden going to down weapons because prominent Muslim figures round the world tell them to.
What worries me is that there is hate brewing both ways now. Will we see revenge attacks on mosques? Probably yes - and that is what scares me.
I genuinely think (and 100pc I do not necessarily mean anyone that has posted recently) that over the last few days, there are people on this board that wouldn't be happy if there child was friends with a Muslim child.
And, in what is only my opinion of course, that is a worrying trend.
Sorry Damo, but I think it is, and I believe a move is currently underway in Turkey to try to produce an acceptable (to muslims) Koran for the modern age. The goal of these radicals is to introduce sharia law as far and as wide as possible. The West in being subservient and welcoming, is seen as being a weak and willing enemy by these people, easy targets if you like. The question is, would the large Muslim population in the Western World vote to outlaw sharia law if it were ever to come to that, or would the millions of "moderate" muslims side with their religion? Remember Muslims are not permitted to renounce their religion and will suffer a terrible fate if they do. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has done so, and is now living in fear of her life.
Please read this by Ayaan Hirsi Ali that I posted earlier. It's frightening and it explains the agenda and how the West needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ayaan-hirsi-ali-how-to-answer-the-paris-terror-attack-1420672114
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ayaan-hirsi-ali-how-to-answer-the-paris-terror-attack-1420672114
Can you copy and paste the article. It is behind a pay wall so we can't read it here.
How to Answer the Paris Terror Attack
The West must stand up for freedom—and acknowledge the link between Islamists’ political ideology and their religious beliefs.
By
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Jan. 7, 2015 6:08 p.m. ET
After the horrific massacre Wednesday at the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, perhaps the West will finally put away its legion of useless tropes trying to deny the relationship between violence and radical Islam.
This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman. This was not an “un-Islamic” attack by a bunch of thugs—the perpetrators could be heard shouting that they were avenging the Prophet Muhammad. Nor was it spontaneous. It was planned to inflict maximum damage, during a staff meeting, with automatic weapons and a getaway plan. It was designed to sow terror, and in that it has worked.
The West is duly terrified. But it should not be surprised.
If there is a lesson to be drawn from such a grisly episode, it is that what we believe about Islam truly doesn’t matter. This type of violence, jihad, is what they, the Islamists, believe.
There are numerous calls to violent jihad in the Quran. But the Quran is hardly alone. In too much of Islam, jihad is a thoroughly modern concept. The 20th-century jihad “bible,” and an animating work for many Islamist groups today, is “The Quranic Concept of War,” a book written in the mid-1970s by Pakistani Gen. S.K. Malik. He argues that because God, Allah, himself authored every word of the Quran, the rules of war contained in the Quran are of a higher caliber than the rules developed by mere mortals.
In Malik’s analysis of Quranic strategy, the human soul—and not any physical battlefield—is the center of conflict. The key to victory, taught by Allah through the military campaigns of the Prophet Muhammad, is to strike at the soul of your enemy. And the best way to strike at your enemy’s soul is through terror. Terror, Malik writes, is “the point where the means and the end meet.” Terror, he adds, “is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose.”
Those responsible for the slaughter in Paris, just like the man who killed the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, are seeking to impose terror. And every time we give in to their vision of justified religious violence, we are giving them exactly what they want.
In Islam, it is a grave sin to visually depict or in any way slander the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims are free to believe this, but why should such a prohibition be forced on nonbelievers? In the U.S., Mormons didn’t seek to impose the death penalty on those who wrote and produced “The Book of Mormon,” a satirical Broadway sendup of their faith. Islam, with 1,400 years of history and some 1.6 billion adherents, should be able to withstand a few cartoons by a French satirical magazine. But of course deadly responses to cartoons depicting Muhammad are nothing new in the age of jihad.
Moreover, despite what the Quran may teach, not all sins can be considered equal. The West must insist that Muslims, particularly members of the Muslim diaspora, answer this question: What is more offensive to a believer—the murder, torture, enslavement and acts of war and terrorism being committed today in the name of Muhammad, or the production of drawings and films and books designed to mock the extremists and their vision of what Muhammad represents?
To answer the late Gen. Malik, our soul in the West lies in our belief in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. The freedom to express our concerns, the freedom to worship who we want, or not to worship at all—such freedoms are the soul of our civilization. And that is precisely where the Islamists have attacked us. Again.
How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.
This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.
What do we get in return? Kalashnikovs in the heart of Paris. The more we oblige, the more we self-censor, the more we appease, the bolder the enemy gets.
There can only be one answer to this hideous act of jihad against the staff of Charlie Hebdo. It is the obligation of the Western media and Western leaders, religious and lay, to protect the most basic rights of freedom of expression, whether in satire on any other form. The West must not appease, it must not be silenced. We must send a united message to the terrorists: Your violence cannot destroy our soul.
Ms. Hirsi Ali, a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, is the author of “Infidel” (2007). Her latest book, “Heretic: The Case for a Muslim Reformation,” will be published in April by HarperCollins
The great friends of the western powers.
Raif Badawi have been sentenced to 1000 lashes and 10 years in prison
for being a one man Charlie Hebdo in Saudi Arabia plus women being arrested for wanting to drive.
In Iran a woman got arrested for watching a basketball match.
In Pakistan Malala Yousufzal shot for going to school.
In China People go missing everyday who Question their leaders.
Freedom of speech is for the minority of the world.
Most people are still in chains.
That is frightening. I have no idea where all this will lead.
No worries, we'll carry on losing everyone we love oh loving, compassionate lord.