Terror attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris

[Crown]

Inconsequential. In Asia, the majority of countries have laws prohibiting hate speech and legalisms are often used in defamation suits. This is not even a question of race; there are value systems here which are utterly incompatible and no amount of papering will change anything.

If this was Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Iran, maybe China, etc. and the list really goes on, Charlie Hebedo would not even exist. In fact, if this was India, the editors and the cartoonists would be dragged out to the street and stoned publicly to a massive cheering crowd. Mind you, these Francophone Islamists adopted a religion steeped in the traditions of Asia where face is important, where tribal and ethnic allegiances are still important etc.

We could debate it all we want, but quite frankly so long as both sides flatly refuse to accept that one side will get offended and one side refuses to tolerate the offence, then these shootings will persist and will not be a one off event.

None of this is 'inconsequential' at all. If this were 1766 France then the editors of Charlie Hebdo would have been sentenced to death. Once their tongues had been cut out and their heads chopped off, their mortal remains would have been burned by the public executioner, and dumped into the river Somme. Mingled among the ashes would be their publication. Much like the fate of Jean-François de la Barre. Hell, Socrates the father of 'the individual' himself was killed on blasphemy charges. It's not something new you know.

If Europeans can move beyond such ridiculous concepts then what, pray tell, is it about the Asian (and now North African) genetic make up which precludes them from doing so as well? Are all these people sub-humans with poorly developed frontal lobes impeding their ability to use rationality? Please tell me.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

None of this is 'inconsequential' at all. If this were 1766 France then the editors of Charlie Hebdo would have been sentenced to death. Once their tongues had been cut out and their heads chopped off, their mortal remains would have been burned by the public executioner, and dumped into the river Somme. Mingled among the ashes would be their publication. Much like the fate of Jean-François de la Barre. Hell, Socrates the father of 'the individual' himself was killed on blasphemy charges. It's not something new you know.

If Europeans can move beyond such ridiculous concepts then what, pray tell, is it about the Asian (and now North African) genetic make up which precludes them from doing so as well? Are all these people sub-humans with poorly developed frontal lobes impeding their ability to use rationality? Please tell me.

Because Asians will not and simply will not for another damn 100 damn years. Asians instead will insist that it is the fundamental point of respect not to ridicule. Much of Asia is still stuck in the medieval age in terms of thinking. To Asians, Europeans are decadent and even selfish.

You are simply reinforcing what I just said. There is no way people on both sides will ever agree on this. You stamping your foot on the ground will not change anything at all.

[ray245]

Inconsequential. In Asia, the majority of countries have laws prohibiting hate speech and legalisms are often used in defamation suits. This is not even a question of race; there are value systems here which are utterly incompatible and no amount of papering will change anything.

If this was Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Iran, maybe China, etc. and the list really goes on, Charlie Hebedo would not even exist. In fact, if this was India, the editors and the cartoonists would be dragged out to the street and stoned publicly to a massive cheering crowd. Mind you, these Francophone Islamists adopted a religion steeped in the traditions of Asia where face is important, where tribal and ethnic allegiances are still important etc.

We could debate it all we want, but quite frankly so long as both sides flatly refuse to accept that one side will get offended and one side refuses to tolerate the offence, then these shootings will persist and will not be a one off event.

None of this is 'inconsequential' at all. If this were 1766 France then the editors of Charlie Hebdo would have been sentenced to death. Once their tongues had been cut out and their heads chopped off, their mortal remains would have been burned by the public executioner, and dumped into the river Somme. Mingled among the ashes would be their publication. Much like the fate of Jean-François de la Barre. Hell, Socrates the father of 'the individual' himself was killed on blasphemy charges. It's not something new you know.

Turns out you can't enforce cultural change via the logic of an argument alone.

If Europeans can move beyond such ridiculous concepts then what, pray tell, is it about the Asian (and now North African) genetic make up which precludes them from doing so as well? Are all these people sub-humans with poorly developed frontal lobes impeding their ability to use rationality? Please tell me.

You can't expect a society to change their thinking in a matter of decades, simply because of the westerners think such attitudes are "barbaric" and "backwards". Do you even consider how would others perceive such an argument? They won't think of this as being a logical argument, but will instead perceive it as the westerners calling them barbarians.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't have time to respond to your whole post right now, Crown, I am literally on my way out the door to a belated department holiday part, but I just wanted to quickly get this point out of the way (the last thing you wrote in your post directed at me):

Aside from Religion being the primary factor that weaves through all the other ones you just mentioned other than say language? Did you really ask me that?

That doesn't answer my question. I asked what makes you think that the multitude of problems with violence is SOLELY a function of religion (which is far from uniform in the Muslim world) and not also a function of economic, social, political, cultural, and other factors (not to mention the way all these factors interact)? And your response to this is to just say ... religion is the primary factor? That's not answering the question, that's restating the premise I was asking you to elaborate on.

As I said in my last post, I am not trying to absolve Islam as a religion from hypothetical responsibility for all of the violence being done in its name. My only real point is that saying something like "Well, there's violence in the Middle East because of Islam" is an incredible oversimplification of a complicated issue, and it feels disingenuous to me to automatically discount all of the other factors.

[Crown]

<snip>.

Have fun at your party dude, let me rephrase; I don't understand how I could possibly answer your question without hitting on religion, as it intrinsically intertwined with things like historical, cultural and social norms of a society that is so strongly dominated by a single state sponsored religion like those witnessed in the Middle East (and really across the breadth of the Muslim world).

Or to put it another way; how could I explain or teach about the history or cultural norms of, say Saudi Arabia, without mentioning anything about Islam. Like if you ask me, hey Crown could you tell me why I can't bring alcohol into the country when I go for a visit, like why is it illegal (i.e. socially taboo or culturally taboo), how could I answer you without referencing Islam?

Or stated more succinctly; how can I possibly comment on a theocracies historical, cultural, social and economical characteristics and pretend that any of those are independent of its religious dogma?

A case in point would be the tale of Reza Aslan who went on CNN and slammed Bill Maher on Female Gentile Mutilation but stating it was a ‘cultural’ phenomenon, rather than a ‘religious’ phenomena. He went on to say that ‘factually’ ‘imperially’ it was incorrect to say that FGM was an Islamic problem, it was an African problem. Unfortunately for him he was wrong.

Neither male nor female circumcision (M/FGM) are found in the Quran. Again, however, both are mentioned in the hadith. When Aslan discussed FGM, he neglected to mention that of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, the Shafi'i school makes FGM mandatory based on these hadith, and the other three schools recommend it. This is why Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, mostly Shafi'i, where Aslan said women were "absolutely 100% equal" to men, has an FGM prevalence of at least 86%, with over 90% of families supporting the practice. And the world's largest Arab Muslim country, Egypt, has an FGM prevalence of over 90%. So yes, both male and female genital cutting pre-date Islam. But it is inaccurate to say that they have no connection whatever to the religion.

So what do I do here? Clearly FGM predated Islam in Central Africa, but it only got to Indonesia due religion.

(By the way, foreigners can indeed by alcohol in certain designated zones, away from the faithful, but even then how can you explain that strange set up, without religion?)

[mr friendly guy]

I'm not saying that the 'Quran doesn't have its own contradictions', I'm saying you cannot have the work around from point blank statements in the Quran as you do in the Bible. Case in point; in the post you responded to I specifically used the example of abstinent homosexual couples who strongly identify themselves as Christian. The reason I did this was specific; Leviticus 18:22 clearly tells us that homosexuality as an abomination and Leviticus 20:13 clearly tells us that they should 'surely be put to death’, so how can anyone when faced with this clear condemnation of who they are not only continue to identify themselves as Christians, but also use scripture as a reason to do so (putting aside people’s remarkable ability to compartmentalise, rationalise and lie to themselves)?

Simple, the mechanism to do so lies within the gospels themselves; the story of the Penitent Thief (Luke 23:39-43) and of the Centurion who both were redeemed during the Crucifixion by Christ. We may say that the Thief was a Jew, he clearly wasn’t a moral one if he was thieving and yet he still was redeemed by Christ. We don’t know anything about the Centurion other than he was not a Jew, and yet he too - a Pagan - was redeemed. Shit, Christ himself even commands people to be baptised, and yet neither of these were and yet both were redeemed. This is the type of internal self contradiction that exists inherently within Christianity that allows people to be openly gay, and yet genuinely believe that they can still be good Christians.

It is also this reason where I mentioned earlier where yes, you can have and ‘death to all baby killing doctors’ and ‘no capital punishment’ people under the same moniker of ‘Christian’ and both can use their holy texts and not their personal set of morals to justify their positions. Because that’s how badly fucked up the Bible is written.

Basically the Bible has more loop holes for someone to cherry pick and twist around (at least in regards to these violent actions), whereas the Koran is less ambiguous in regards to these same ones. Just for the record I don't have the knowledge to comment either way, but I want to make sure I understand your argument.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm not clear on a couple of things. Why are you talking about brown people when your opponent, Crown, is talking about the religion of the two shooters. As far as it being evil it is about as evil as Christianity which can be pretty damn evil if one goes through the Koran and I don't see anyone defending Christians nor do I see it being considered an acceptable defense by those that defend Christianity to make it about the color of their skin. I am fascinated why Islam is worthy of such defense and slandering defensive tactics.

Calling the majorty of those that practice Islam evil is inaccurate and racist. Attacking the religion itself as encouraging said behavior is valid every bit as doing so when attacking Christianity.

By the way. Shooting unarmed people over a cartoon is what I would consider evil. Though if evil doesn't work for you then crazy, irrational, criminal, etc. Pick from one of those or something similar. Whatever the choice it won't be positive.

It's like you didn't read a word I wrote despite quoting all of it. Not bothering until you do.

Well, I'm sorry you feel I didn't read a word of what you said. I did. The main issue I had was you trying to make this discussion about race instead of religion and practically calling Crown a racist. You have corrected this so further discussion isn't necessary.

I added my own thoughts on the matter. In a way you say it yourself when you stated "just that there's really no reason that people should act all surprised and bewildered that such things happen!"

If Islam was a religion of peace then we could say this is surprising. Along the same lines of calling people out when they try to claim Christianity is a tolerant religion.

[AniThyng]

Should I tell my Muslim colleagues that they're bad Muslims because they cherry-pick the parts of their religion, drink wine, eat pork, ignore the Ramadan and make jokes about the Qu'ran from time to time? Your posts above make it sound like you think only the terrorists or the angry fundamentalists are true and obedient Muslims and that's something I find utterly distasteful.

Your colleagues are probably good people and sound secular ethics, but it doesn't really do justice to the language to therefore conclude they are obedient and true muslims if they aren't even observing ramadan and abstaining from pork and wine. "lapsed" or "non-observant", sure. I too know quite a few muslims who would eat pork and drink and ignore some tenets - but they are under no illusions that they are therefore 'good' muslims as defined by the religion and it's practitioners itself.

To put it another way, I'm not very clear on why I would be offended if you told me I am a bad Buddhist because despite being born into the religion I barely adhere to any of it. I would likely agree, yeah, I am a bad buddhist, so what. But then again buddhism is not so tightly wound to my identity - if you told I i am a bad chinese because i can't speak mandarin despite having the opportunity, I may get offended, depending on your tone, and if you yourself happen to be chinese or not (much more likely to take offense if you are, obviously) - and this is a question of choice too because i can't choose my genetics, but i can "choose" my language about as much as I can "choose" my cultural religion in this context.

Do you apply this logic to the #Gamergate debacle and the subsequent labeling of a broad group?

[Broomstick]

He's more worthy of sympathy than cartoonists who make fun of the victims of Boko Haram, implying the kids wanted to get abducted, raped and knocked up so they could draw welfare checks.

The larger point is that the magazine was basically an equal opportunity satire outfit that made fun of everyone and everything. I don't know French, even enough to read anything, so I'd be careful about making assumptions based just on cover pictures. Too easy to miss the context.

My stab at translating that headline is “Boko Haram's sex slaves angrily say don't touch our benefits.” Given this is a confrontational satire magazine, and the whole point is to grab attention, without further context it's a leap to say Charlie Hedbo was in favor of abduction, rape, and all the rest. I mean, it's like treating Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal as a serious proposal – it's so clearly over the top to make a point. Or it's like taking an Onion article seriously. Sure, inflammatory headline but this isn't news it's satire.

Even IF someone were to speak out in favor of Boko Haram that does not mean they somehow deserve to be gunned down in cold blood. That's the point of free speech, that people can be offensive without government sanction, imprisonment, or death.

[Thanas]

Hell, Socrates the father of 'the individual' himself was killed on blasphemy charges. It's not something new you know.

And he totally deserved it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hell, Socrates the father of 'the individual' himself was killed on blasphemy charges. It's not something new you know.

And he totally deserved it.

Please tell me you're joking when you say that someone deserved to be killed for blasphemy.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Have fun at your party dude, let me rephrase; I don't understand how I could possibly answer your question without hitting on religion, as it intrinsically intertwined with things like historical, cultural and social norms of a society that is so strongly dominated by a single state sponsored religion like those witnessed in the Middle East (and really across the breadth of the Muslim world).

<snip>

I don't know what to tell you. I really don't feel like repeating myself for a third time as I'm not super invested in this discussion anyway. I never said that you should ignore religion entirely. I find it extremely befuddling how on earth you managed to read that form my post, which I felt was pretty explicit on my feelings. It's not a rebuttal to my argument to say, religion is "intrinsically intertwined with things like historical, cultural and social norms" because that's exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place. It's fallacious in the extreme to ignore religion's impact on events in the Middle East; luckily, I never argued nor insinuated that. It is also just as fallacious to do what you are doing, and ignore historical, cultural, and social norms to focus exclusively on religion. You can't have it both ways.

[Elfdart]

So Christian fundies can also turn violent when their sacred cows get prodded. The only difference I see is that the Muslim fundies are more skilled and daring than the Christian ones, who are luckily dumber and more craven.

We can have this conversation if you want Elfdart, but I hardly see why we should bother. Is it true there are other religions which have belief systems that are way more fucked up than Islam? Yes, Leviticus and Deuteronomy should make any rational clear thinking person want to scream in terror at the shit written in there. Can you draw a straight line between those belief systems and crimes committed by their believers? No, in general the only religion which you can do so is Islam.

There is a reason that there are something like 41,000 different Christian denominations. Their holy books are so full of contradiction you can actually have one person who believes all baby killers should die, and one person who believes that any killing is a sin and both of them identify as 'Christian' and both of them being able to use the words and teachings of their holy scriptures - and not their own morality - to justify their position. I mean there are gay Christians in this world Elfdart. Gay people who not only identify themselves as Christians but also live in abstinence and modesty before marriage in order to 'honour their faith'. If that isn't a more apt example of how contradictory this religion is (and how fucking powerful a brain washer religion is in general) then I don't know what is.

Alternatively; no such self contradiction can exist within Islam, because no matter how morally vacuous it's teachings are, it's literature is remarkably "better" written than that of the Christian doctrine. Wanna know what to do with someone who insults the Prophet? It's written in the Hadith. Want to know what to do with a thief? It's in the Quoran. And there is sweet fuck all you can use from those sources with which to contradict it! That's the problem that faces Islam today. It doesn't need 'moderation' it needs a 'reformation'.

The reason there are fewer Muslim denominations is the same reason there are fewer political parties and quite often, only one candidate on the ballot when the rulers are so generous as to let the people vote at all. The region of the world where Islam is most common is made up of the remnants of several colonial empires and has almost zero tradition with democracy, civil rights and so on. On those rare occasions when pluralism, tolerance and democracy looked like they might take root, it was quickly snuffed out in favor of a police state imposed from outside. One of the easiest ways for a generalissimo to keep power is by inciting mobs based on race, nationalism and/or religion, especially when the common folk are poverty-stricken and one of the few sources of self-worth allowed to them is the Koran. So it should come as no surprise that some immigrants from that region (and a subsequent generation or two) might bring that volatile mixture with them. Add in the usual maladies common among unassimilated immigrants (poverty, crime, bigotry) and lo and behold...

Like the fundie Muslims, you seem to think the words in their special book have some kind of magical powers, like the Necronomicon. You could swap out the Koran with anything from the Latin bible to Dianetics under the same conditions and you'd have similar results. We had similar issues in America -Fuck Yeah! with Irish Catholics 150 years ago.

Speaking of the Irish, one of the reasons their land of origin was so blighted is that Oliver Cromwell, that great by-product of the Protestant Reformation, raped Ireland four ways from Sunday, exterminating the Irish like vermin and reducing the survivors to bare subsistence farming. Looking at charnel houses like Pakistan, Iraq, Nigeria and Syria, it looks like large chunks of the Muslim world really are following in the footsteps of Cromwell (Oliver and Thomas), Wolsingham, James Stuart and Martin Luther. And that's the last thing they ever needed.

I did no such thing. Quote me doing so or apologise, or I will petition for a reprimand. Here's a hint; no matter how much you cry about it, speaking against Islam is not the same as being anti brown people. I mean, could you imagine if I was an agnostic Indian and I had just read what you said? I don't know whether I would die of laughter or shock. It seems to me the only person who is focused on race here, is you.

Cut the horseshit. If the hysterical attacks on Muslims aren't racist, then why does almost every political cartoon (especially the Charlie Hebdo ones) depict them as crazed, dark-skinned, hook-nosed savages? Other than the fact that they're just cribbing from anti-Jewish cartoons from early in the last century, when DA JOOOOOOOOZ! were drawn as crazed, dark-skinned, hook-nosed savages, I mean.

By the way, since when would being an agnostic Indian be proof against having prejudice against Muslims or anyone else?

[Elfdart]

The current US president has been the target of racist political cartoons and racist slurs. Oddly enough, no Americans have donned masks, picked up guns (it's not like those are rare around here), and trotted off to execute the originators of those images and words.

See, that's a major difference between our culture and certain other cultures - we don't believe offensive words and images, no matter how offensive, are a valid excuse to kill other people.

That's funny. Just a week ago, Rania Khalek and Max Blumenthal committed the unspeakable sacrilege of using Twitter to point out that in fact Chris Kyle was NOT born in a manger on December 25th and didn't die for our sins. This vile blasphemy angered the faithful to the point where Khalek and Blumenthal were awash in death and rape threats, as well as anti-Semitic abuse.

The only substantive difference is that the American fundie sacrilege police are a bunch of cowards who talk tough but haven't actually done anything yet (knock on wood).

It's not that we don't kill people - recent years have shown that the US is quite able to do that - but that's not something we see as a reason for killing.

Anwar al-Awlaki was burned alive with a drone-launched hellfire missile because he wrote and broadcast nasty things about the US government. For good measure, his teenage son was also burned alive by a drone attack two weeks later. Which only proves how superior our culture is to those barbarians who still shoot and stab their victims. How primitive of them!

[Crown]

Basically the Bible has more loop holes for someone to cherry pick and twist around (at least in regards to these violent actions), whereas the Koran is less ambiguous in regards to these same ones. Just for the record I don't have the knowledge to comment either way, but I want to make sure I understand your argument.

Yes.

[Crown]

I don't know what to tell you. I really don't feel like repeating myself for a third time as I'm not super invested in this discussion anyway. I never said that you should ignore religion entirely. I find it extremely befuddling how on earth you managed to read that form my post, which I felt was pretty explicit on my feelings. It's not a rebuttal to my argument to say, religion is "intrinsically intertwined with things like historical, cultural and social norms" because that's exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place. It's fallacious in the extreme to ignore religion's impact on events in the Middle East; luckily, I never argued nor insinuated that. It is also just as fallacious to do what you are doing, and ignore historical, cultural, and social norms to focus exclusively on religion. You can't have it both ways.

I have no idea why you’re banging your head in frustration. You want me to opine on a distinction without a difference when dealing with heavily theocratic countries. I gave you a very good example of how difficult it is to do with FGM (recap, predates the introduction of Islam in Central Africa, but is only prevalent in Indonesia due to religion), so what do you wish me to do? Do you wish me to go line by line on behavioural norms across the width and breadth of the Islamic world stretching from Central Africa to South East Asia and rule which are ‘religious’ catalysts for ‘all of the violence that comes out of Muslim regions’ and which were ‘historical, cultural, social and economical’ like you initially asked me?

What a fucking waste of time.

The good news is this; all forms of human behaviour can be changed which is why I rebounded so harshly over the; “Asian’s can’t understand that people have the right to be offended but don’t have the right to not be offended” line from another poster.

[Crown]

The reason there are fewer Muslim denominations is the same reason there are fewer political parties and quite often, only one candidate on the ballot when the rulers are so generous as to let the people vote at all. The region of the world where Islam is most common is made up of the remnants of several colonial empires and has almost zero tradition with democracy, civil rights and so on. On those rare occasions when pluralism, tolerance and democracy looked like they might take root, it was quickly snuffed out in favor of a police state imposed from outside. One of the easiest ways for a generalissimo to keep power is by inciting mobs based on race, nationalism and/or religion, especially when the common folk are poverty-stricken and one of the few sources of self-worth allowed to them is the Koran. So it should come as no surprise that some immigrants from that region (and a subsequent generation or two) might bring that volatile mixture with them. Add in the usual maladies common among unassimilated immigrants (poverty, crime, bigotry) and lo and behold…

Religion lends itself well to totalitarianism. We’re in agreement. In regards to your last line; as an immigrant myself you are using a good example of failed assimilation policies and ignoring a huge factor. Religion. Australia has roughly the same number of Buddhists (2.5%) as Muslims (2.2%) where is the huge ‘problem’ with Australia’s Buddhists that there demonstrably is with its Muslims?

Like the fundie Muslims, you seem to think the words in their special book have some kind of magical powers, like the Necronomicon. You could swap out the Koran with anything from the Latin bible to Dianetics under the same conditions and you'd have similar results. We had similar issues in America -Fuck Yeah! with Irish Catholics 150 years ago.

What are you talking about? Are you telling me when discussing the actions of jihadis I’m not meant to point out that they believe the hype?

Speaking of the Irish, one of the reasons their land of origin was so blighted is that Oliver Cromwell, that great by-product of the Protestant Reformation, raped Ireland four ways from Sunday, exterminating the Irish like vermin and reducing the survivors to bare subsistence farming. Looking at charnel houses like Pakistan, Iraq, Nigeria and Syria, it looks like large chunks of the Muslim world really are following in the footsteps of Cromwell (Oliver and Thomas), Wolsingham, James Stuart and Martin Luther. And that's the last thing they ever needed.

You’re such an ass. The Reformation, with its numerous flaws, broke the central authority of a Theocrat over a large swathe and ethnically diverse people. It allowed the thought that they could ‘find God’ their own way. Once you had one splinter, it naturally led to thousands more which allowed this pluralism of which you spoke earlier to appear. Which means people have to learn how to get along with other people. That’s my point, not that we should welcome sectarian violence in the Islamic world.

Also, what you just said was ‘Obama uses drone strikes, he’s a Democrat in a democracy, therefore electing Democrats in a democracy means you’re going to get drone strikes’.

Cut the horseshit. If the hysterical attacks on Muslims aren't racist, then why does almost every political cartoon (especially the Charlie Hebdo ones) depict them as crazed, dark-skinned, hook-nosed savages? Other than the fact that they're just cribbing from anti-Jewish cartoons from early in the last century, when DA JOOOOOOOOZ! were drawn as crazed, dark-skinned, hook-nosed savages, I mean.

Stop flinging it first. Why were 12 people executed in Paris Elfdart?

By the way, since when would being an agnostic Indian be proof against having prejudice against Muslims or anyone else?

I was being accused of being prejudiced against ‘brown people’ on the assumption I was a Christian Caucasian. Fuck you just did it again, you assume any ‘attacks’ against something you can convert to and apostasy from (if they don’t kill you first) means that person must be a racist. I understand that the right wing is going to parrot a lot of what I’m saying for other reasons but I can’t stop saying ‘just because’. I’m not going to stop calling Israel a fascist state with prejudice policies and leaders who should be tried for war crimes just because some Neo Nazi will agree with me! Why then, when Jihadis do exactly what their religion tells them to do should I fall over backwards to not state this very simple and obvious fact?

[AniThyng]

By the way, since when would being an agnostic Indian be proof against having prejudice against Muslims or anyone else?

True - fear of right-wing Islamism is not confined to westerners. One need look no further than the imminent fracture of Malaysia's federal opposition alliance because the Islamist Pan-Islamic Party of Malaysia intends to table a motion to allow it to implement Hudud Criminal Punishments in the one state it controls, and that it puts this objective above and beyond all else. And non-muslim citizens in Malaysia form close to 35% of the population and have lived in a nominally islamic state all their life and don't even reside in that particular state. Many might even consider it better to keep the ruling party in power (itself a right-wing nationalist-islamic party) than to allow the Islamist party anywhere close to federal power on account of this devotion to Islamic governance. This closeness to actual Islamic governance makes me very ambivalent about the "moderation" of the religion's power stuctures. It is not to say I buy into right wing fantasies about a global caliphate of course, but I can personally witness that it takes a lot more than a western lifestyle and middle class income to make a liberal muslim.

Next to that, perhaps it is appropriate to wonder why europeans and americans feel so threatened by their islamic populations that don't even exceed double digits.

[Metahive]

Your colleagues are probably good people and sound secular ethics, but it doesn't really do justice to the language to therefore conclude they are obedient and true muslims if they aren't even observing ramadan and abstaining from pork and wine. "lapsed" or "non-observant", sure. I too know quite a few muslims who would eat pork and drink and ignore some tenets - but they are under no illusions that they are therefore 'good' muslims as defined by the religion and it's practitioners itself.

To put it another way, I'm not very clear on why I would be offended if you told me I am a bad Buddhist because despite being born into the religion I barely adhere to any of it. I would likely agree, yeah, I am a bad buddhist, so what. But then again buddhism is not so tightly wound to my identity - if you told I i am a bad chinese because i can't speak mandarin despite having the opportunity, I may get offended, depending on your tone, and if you yourself happen to be chinese or not (much more likely to take offense if you are, obviously) - and this is a question of choice too because i can't choose my genetics, but i can "choose" my language about as much as I can "choose" my cultural religion in this context.

Here's the thing, islamic terrorism predominately targets other Muslims. Pegida came about out of some sort of fear of all the refugees coming to Germany from the regions ravaged by ISIS. How do you think how those refugees feel when they not only get the usual dose of xenophobia but are also told by people like Crown here that the fuckers who chased them off their homes and probably butchered people they know are the true Muslims and the real face of Islam? It's adding insult to injury to people who already have suffered and lost quite a lot in life, don't you think? I find that abominable.

Do you apply this logic to the #Gamergate debacle and the subsequent labeling of a broad group?

There are quite a few pretty big differences between "gamers" and Muslims. For one, gaming is a hobby picked up at one's leisure and as a whole a pretty superficial thing to build an identity around as it lacks any sort of moral and ethical guidance. A child in, say, Iran however will have a really hard time to grow up without getting also inundated with islamic culture and teachings. Second, "gamers" are a group that is spoiled, pampered and catered to by a multi-billion dollar industry. Muslims are a hated and distrusted minority that's under general suspicion of being murderous criminals. I tell you, if Muslims were as privileged a group as "gamers" are, then my judgement of their actions would be harsher than it is right now.

[jwl]

Other than the fact that they're just cribbing from anti-Jewish cartoons from early in the last century, when DA JOOOOOOOOZ! were drawn as crazed, dark-skinned, hook-nosed savages, I mean.

Charlie Hebdo still publishes those cartoons.


In this parody of the hit French film “Les Intouchables” (The Untouchables) an Orthodox Jew pushes around the prophet Mohammed. The text reads: “Don’t make fun.”


This series called “The Torah Illustrated by Charb,” makes light of the Jewish commandments. This particular cartoon reads: 68. “Men will not shave the hair on the sides of their heads.” The man in the cartoon says: “You can shave your brains but not these!”


Israel want to attack Iran
Israeli soldier : "We did not appreciate."
(on the cover of Fatwa Hebdo: Moses Fag)

Seeing the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland/Alternative for Germany), a new far-right party gain so much support does as well because those people have a realistic chance of making my life worse. Muslims don't. I have Muslim colleagues and went to school with islamic kids. None of them ever made me feel threatened because of their religion. The one skinhead who constantly insulted and harassed me for my race however did until he was thrown out of the school for it.

How are the AfD far-right in the usual sense of the word?

In fact, if this was India, the editors and the cartoonists would be dragged out to the street and stoned publicly to a massive cheering crowd.

No, they really wouldn't. Name examples of when stuff like that happened.

[Broomstick]

The current US president has been the target of racist political cartoons and racist slurs. Oddly enough, no Americans have donned masks, picked up guns (it's not like those are rare around here), and trotted off to execute the originators of those images and words.

See, that's a major difference between our culture and certain other cultures - we don't believe offensive words and images, no matter how offensive, are a valid excuse to kill other people.

That's funny. Just a week ago, Rania Khalek and Max Blumenthal committed the unspeakable sacrilege of using Twitter to point out that in fact Chris Kyle was NOT born in a manger on December 25th and didn't die for our sins. This vile blasphemy angered the faithful to the point where Khalek and Blumenthal were awash in death and rape threats, as well as anti-Semitic abuse.

The only substantive difference is that the American fundie sacrilege police are a bunch of cowards who talk tough but haven't actually done anything yet (knock on wood).

Right, thanks for getting the point - we don't actually kill people over these things. You say this makes the "fundies" a bunch of cowards like that's a bad thing but it isn't. It's good no one acted on that shit. No, American asshats, despite the guns and the tough talk, by and large do not go out and actually kill people no matter how pissed off they get. Those that do, like Timothy McVeigh, are the rare exception and treated as the low-life criminals they are and not as heros.

You are free to speak or think offensively, you are NOT free to act offensively.

It's not that we don't kill people - recent years have shown that the US is quite able to do that - but that's not something we see as a reason for killing.

Anwar al-Awlaki was burned alive with a drone-launched hellfire missile because he wrote and broadcast nasty things about the US government. For good measure, his teenage son was also burned alive by a drone attack two weeks later. Which only proves how superior our culture is to those barbarians who still shoot and stab their victims. How primitive of them!

Again, thanks for making my point - we don't kill people for mocking religious. Anwar al-Awlaki was, among other things, tried in abstentia by Yemen, a county which he was a citizen of, and thus was a fugitive criminal. I don't know how solid the evidence was against him, what with so much of it being classified, but if he was actively engaged in planning and organizing terrorist attacks against the US then no, he wasn't killed because of his words or his opinions, he was killed because of his actions.

You are free to speak or think offensively, you are NOT free to act offensively.

[AniThyng]

Here's the thing, islamic terrorism predominately targets other Muslims. Pegida came about out of some sort of fear of all the refugees coming to Germany from the regions ravaged by ISIS. How do you think how those refugees feel when they not only get the usual dose of xenophobia but are also told by people like Crown here that the fuckers who chased them off their homes and probably butchered people they know are the true Muslims and the real face of Islam? It's adding insult to injury to people who already have suffered and lost quite a lot in life, don't you think? I find that abominable.

...Are we doing this? Isn't this a clear case of "No True Scotsman"? ISIS may not be the "true" Muslims, insofar as mainstream Muslims in most other places agree that they go too far (and of course add on the obligatory litany of american crimes (thanks Simon, it's a pretty accurate description...) that lead to ISIS existing in the first place), but you can't say with a straight face that they aren't a real face of a particular brand of Islam.

I mean yeah, I get it, we have right wing "kick the ungrateful foreigners out" movements too, and I *personally* know what it is like to live under a moderate Islamic government (so at a local level, it goes further than merely lashing out at being oppressed (well unless you buy into the economic oppression angle (subsitute "jew" for "chinese" to get a rough, if extreme idea)), but yes, Islam in practice being a harsher and less lenient religion than most others is not some sort of fantasy. That is not to say it is completely incompatible with liberalism, but Crown is not wrong when he says Islam in general needs a "reformation".

[AniThyng]

In fact, if this was India, the editors and the cartoonists would be dragged out to the street and stoned publicly to a massive cheering crowd.

No, they really wouldn't. Name examples of when stuff like that happened.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ob-during/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 147780.cms

Well, close enough, I think.

[Metahive]

...Are we doing this? Isn't this a clear case of "No True Scotsman"? ISIS may not be the "true" Muslims, insofar as mainstream Muslims in most other places agree that they go too far (and of course add on the obligatory litany of american crimes (thanks Simon, it's a pretty accurate description...) that lead to ISIS existing in the first place), but you can't say with a straight face that they aren't a real face of a particular brand of Islam.

I mean yeah, I get it, we have right wing "kick the ungrateful foreigners out" movements too, and I *personally* know what it is like to live under a moderate Islamic government (so at a local level, it goes further than merely lashing out at being oppressed (well unless you buy into the economic oppression angle (subsitute "jew" for "chinese" to get a rough, if extreme idea)), but yes, Islam in practice being a harsher and less lenient religion than most others is not some sort of fantasy. That is not to say it is completely incompatible with liberalism, but Crown is not wrong when he says Islam in general needs a "reformation".

O. FUCKING. HELL!


You know I'm starting to get seriously pissed that people so completely misread what I'm writing that I'm starting to think that it's deliberate trolling.

NO, I'm not saying ISIS aren't "true" Muslims (whatever that is anyway), I'm saying that western bigots are basically labeling them as the ONLY true Muslims, the ONE true face of Islam. They insinuate that deep down all Muslims are poised to be fanatical assholes like ISIS or the Taliban because the one true Islam is the Islam of hate and intolerance practiced by those groups. CLEAR NOW? Or do I need to draw pretty pictures in crayon to accompany this?

And here you go as well and go how Islam is somehow so much worse than Christianity (it's not, for one it's not a death-worshiping doomsday cult) and in need of reform. Do you think this will happen faster if we go and harass and insult Muslims for their fate with hate, fear, suspicion and xenophobia? Yeah, I don't think so either.

[AniThyng]

...Are we doing this? Isn't this a clear case of "No True Scotsman"? ISIS may not be the "true" Muslims, insofar as mainstream Muslims in most other places agree that they go too far (and of course add on the obligatory litany of american crimes (thanks Simon, it's a pretty accurate description...) that lead to ISIS existing in the first place), but you can't say with a straight face that they aren't a real face of a particular brand of Islam.

I mean yeah, I get it, we have right wing "kick the ungrateful foreigners out" movements too, and I *personally* know what it is like to live under a moderate Islamic government (so at a local level, it goes further than merely lashing out at being oppressed (well unless you buy into the economic oppression angle (subsitute "jew" for "chinese" to get a rough, if extreme idea)), but yes, Islam in practice being a harsher and less lenient religion than most others is not some sort of fantasy. That is not to say it is completely incompatible with liberalism, but Crown is not wrong when he says Islam in general needs a "reformation".

O. FUCKING. HELL!


You know I'm starting to get seriously pissed that people so completely misread what I'm writing that I'm starting to think that it's deliberate trolling.

NO, I'm not saying ISIS aren't "true" Muslims (whatever that is anyway), I'm saying that western bigots are basically labeling them as the ONLY true Muslims, the ONE true face of Islam. They insinuate that deep down all Muslims are poised to be fanatical assholes like ISIS or the Taliban because the one true Islam is the Islam of hate and intolerance practiced by those groups. CLEAR NOW? Or do I need to draw pretty pictures in crayon to accompany this?

And here you go as well and go how Islam is somehow so much worse than Christianity (it's not, for one it's not a death-worshiping doomsday cult) and in need of reform. Do you think this will happen faster if we go and harass and insult Muslims for their fate with hate, fear, suspicion and xenophobia? Yeah, I don't think so either.

...I'm not sure how you can define Christianity as a "death worshiping doomsday cult" in such a way that excludes Islam from the same charges. Okay, true, Islam declares that Jesus did not in fact die and raise again, but Islam has a doomsday and end of days concept just like the Christians.

And no, of course I don't think that an Islamic reformation will occur under those conditions, or even that it can be forced from the outside, it has to come from within from Islam's followers themselves.

And I think you are reading far too much into Crown's rhetoric - he obviously knows that not all Muslim individuals are poised to turn into fanatical murders. But what we are interested here are the ideologies, some fundamental to the religion's main sects today, that facilitate such attitudes when it does occur.