The four cartoons that charlie Hebdo magazine have published that mocks the four main religions, Should be Republished by the free press of Europe and on a given day in main cities across the continent, millions of people should hold the pictures aloft with smiles and Laughter.
You can't beat an invisible enemy but you can mock them until they implode.
Yep, until a few suicide bombers click on and join in.
SELR, I think it is great that you have posted those banners showing that the majority of Muslims are against these attacks, because I think there is a danger as it says that people who don't listen won't hear the messages of condemnation from the bulk of the Muslim community.
However, I don't believe that the figures at the beginning of the gif are a true reflection of the numbers that do support the violence. The quoted figure of 31,500 is the CIA's estimate for ISIS troops on the ground in Syria/Iraq. It does not include those who are supportive of ISIS in those areas but who are not actual fighters (this number will necessarily be far bigger). It does not include Al-Qu'ida and its various splinter groups, it does not include Boko Haram, Al Ittihad Al Islamia, and literally dozens (possibly hundreds) of other violent-muslim groups worldwide. Crucially though it doesn't count (and I've no way of knowing how it could) the thousands of disaffected individuals and tiny informal groups who believe that violence is the way to progress Islamic aims. The CIA's figure will not include the perpetrators of yesterday's barbarity. Nor 9/11, 7/7, Woolwich, Madrid, Sydney or I strongly suspect, whatever is the next attack on western soil. With so many omissions, it's fair to say that the 31.5k figure is meaningless in all ways except as a benchmark to say that the true problem is far far deeper than that.
I see this Facebook group (retweeted by Richard Dawkins) shows plenty of Muslims that are happy the attacks took place. Would be great if we had someone on here who could translate some of them. The reaction by those who respond in English on the page who do seem able to read the comments is telling.
Youngest of the three suspects has handed himself into police after a siege
I've just read on the guardian he's handed himself in after seeing his name on social media. He was in school at the time.
name was released after they found 3 id's left in the car... it's quite possible they bought stolen id's and planted them in order to send the police off the trail.
I just don't know how on earth we can deal with such a massive chasm in our beliefs. ( see below) I only know that I will continue to stand by my right to state my opinions freely.
The following is a view of freedom of speech from an Islamic cleric.
'Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.
Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.
Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.
The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.
So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?
It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world's population was protected.'
To what extent will their be a debate about their religion if it turns out that the gunmen shooting the police this morning were unrelated to those attacking Charlie Hebdo yesterday?
Will there be close attention paid to the religion of the cowards bombing a kebab shop close to a mosque this morning?
To what extent will their be a debate about their religion if it turns out that the gunmen shooting the police this morning were unrelated to those attacking Charlie Hebdo yesterday?
Will there be close attention paid to the religion of the cowards bombing a kebab shop close to a mosque this morning?
If they claim they committed the attacks in the name of their religion or were heard chanting religious slogans whilst committing those attacks then I would expect there to be a debate about their religion.
Every person on that Facebook thread that enjoys or is supporting the shootings should be rounded up put on a tiny island and then have that island napalmd until it's clear of the vermin on it
To what extent will their be a debate about their religion if it turns out that the gunmen shooting the police this morning were unrelated to those attacking Charlie Hebdo yesterday?
Will there be close attention paid to the religion of the cowards bombing a kebab shop close to a mosque this morning?
If they claim they committed the attacks in the name of their religion or were heard chanting religious slogans whilst committing those attacks then I would expect there to be a debate about their religion.
I would say without any info to go on, that the shootings will be political and in the name of Islam and the bombing a racist and revenge attack against the religion of the shooters
Comments
Fck that
Don't expect to see many published in the UK.
The British press went missing with the Danish cartoons.
However, I don't believe that the figures at the beginning of the gif are a true reflection of the numbers that do support the violence. The quoted figure of 31,500 is the CIA's estimate for ISIS troops on the ground in Syria/Iraq. It does not include those who are supportive of ISIS in those areas but who are not actual fighters (this number will necessarily be far bigger). It does not include Al-Qu'ida and its various splinter groups, it does not include Boko Haram, Al Ittihad Al Islamia, and literally dozens (possibly hundreds) of other violent-muslim groups worldwide. Crucially though it doesn't count (and I've no way of knowing how it could) the thousands of disaffected individuals and tiny informal groups who believe that violence is the way to progress Islamic aims. The CIA's figure will not include the perpetrators of yesterday's barbarity. Nor 9/11, 7/7, Woolwich, Madrid, Sydney or I strongly suspect, whatever is the next attack on western soil. With so many omissions, it's fair to say that the 31.5k figure is meaningless in all ways except as a benchmark to say that the true problem is far far deeper than that.
I see this Facebook group (retweeted by Richard Dawkins) shows plenty of Muslims that are happy the attacks took place. Would be great if we had someone on here who could translate some of them. The reaction by those who respond in English on the page who do seem able to read the comments is telling.
The following is a view of freedom of speech from an Islamic cleric.
'Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.
Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.
Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.
The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.
So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?
It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world's population was protected.'
Explosion near mosque in eastern France
Will there be close attention paid to the religion of the cowards bombing a kebab shop close to a mosque this morning?