A noticeable fact is how mainstream newspapers in France are careful not to make the amalgam between these few barbarians and a whole religion.
Although it would be nice, from a PR standpoint, if some French Muslim organizations could condemn those events, becuase I don't know what most Muslims think about Charlie Hebdo. Have they? I have searched Google News for that and didn't find links, so please post if there are some. Or they may just not be sufficiently organized for PR.
["The UOIF condemns in the strongest terms this criminal attack, and these horrible murders."](translated)
Muslim leaders and organizations around the world condemning the attack: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/46-examples-of-muslim-out...
Some of the greatest Muslim scholars (who the masses follow) had to say about it: http://www.onislam.net/english/shariah/special-coverage/4816...
I can go on and on but I think you get the picture. Practicing orthodox Muslims (notice I didn't say "moderate Muslims") are NOT quiet on this.
Maybe ask most Muslims, not some self-appointed leaders?
In my experience, here, the moderate muslims are often rather quiet, perhaps out of fear. In general, they do not support extremism and fear non-muslim extremist retaliation. They are in a really bad spot, and I sympathize with their situation.
> the moderate muslims are often rather quiet.
Yes we are. But there are a few reasons for that:
1- First, Muslims can't be put in one group, there is 1.6 billion muslims worldwide with hundreds of different views and levels of tolerance.
2- Most of them don't have time or are too busy with their daily life. Think about the % of people who go vote every four years in a democracy. 30% maybe 50% at max vote, the rest can't be bothered because they are busy with their daily problems. Add to that that most Muslims live in a third world country, so they have enough problems already.
3- The first people affected by terrorism in term of body counts and extremism in general are Muslims themselves. Did you know for example that ISIS consider the previous president of egypt (Mursi) who is from the muslim brotherhood to be an infidel who need to be killed.
4- People in Muslim countries are getting numb to all this news reports because they are used to it. I remember when I was a kid watching Arab TV news showing people dying in Palestine and at one time the TV commentator laughed. She then said she was sorry and she didn't mean to laugh at what was happening. Most Arabs/Muslim who care about what's going on the Middle East have already watched too much death to react to it.
5- Some people do want to go to the street and demonstrate against this blood shed but they are not allowed by their local governments. They fear that this could turn in a revolt. Arab spring says hi.
6- There have been hundreds if not thousands of condemnation an protests by muslims all over the world but the media don't cover them much because they don't fit the narrative of evil muslims.
Me as a Muslim I'm ashamed of what is happening and wish this Scumbugs are captured and put to justice. I see to much politic invested in terrorism that I know it's about power not about religion.
I also do believe we muslims failed big time to adapt to the 21st century and need to wake up and get our acts together.
I'm really sorry for the families of the victims and I hope they capture the scums who did this.
There was an interesting discussion on reddit about this:
A member on my blog, brother "zulfiqarchucknorris", sent me the following information:
Dear Osama Abdullah
I would like to inform you that on the many articles about the "poet killings" (specifically asma bint marwan) you fail to to include why the asma bint marwan chain for ibn saad is weak, although the ibn ishaq version is fully explained. I'll give you the explanasion:
(copied from wikipedia, scroll toward the middle of the page)
Al-Albani declared Ibn Sa'd's chain of transmission to be weak as well, as it includes Al-Waqidi:
Ibn Sa'd → Al-Waqidi → 'Abd Allah ibn al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl → Al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl
Al-Waqidi has been condemned as an untrustworthy narrator and has been frequently and severely criticized by scholars, thus his narrations have been abandoned by the majority of hadith scholars. Yahya ibn Ma'een said: "Al-Waqidi narrated 20,000 false hadith about the prophet". Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Al-Albani said: "Al-Waqidi is a liar" while Al-Bukhari said he didn't include a single letter by Al-Waqidi in his hadith works.
In addition, this isnad is discontinued (muʻḍal) as Al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl never met any of Muhammad's companions.
2 is al waqidi
3 is ibn hisham
Copy pasting doesn't help anyone. I'd rather have it that you go to someone who is an expert on this field, do your research and ask him/her what's bugging you.
The technical answer to this reply is, firstly, that the same story is told by different narrators, not just the one mentioned. This is, of course, conveniently left out from the reponse you posted.
But if you're not a muslim, the answer is that this is part of the islamic canon. It's also part of sharia. It's part of the law in >50 islamic countries. If the argument held any water this would not be true.
> Copy pasting doesn't help anyone. I'd rather have it that you go to someone who is an expert on this field, do your research and ask him/her what's bugging you.
Sorry I was trained in exact sciences, and I have family that's in history (with focus on religious history). I believe in first sources' authority over people's authority.
"Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' And He said, 'Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.'"(Gen. 22:1-2).
Remember that religious texts are mostly proverbs. These events most probably didn't actually happen, they are trying to communicate moral attitudes via stories... a little like Winnie the Pooh and Friends.
2) you're mostly showing ignorance, as "mostly proverbs" does not apply at all to islamic texts. Random example :
Different religions are different (surprising how controversial such an obvious truth can be).
3) Given that you're comparing moral parables ("lies to convey a greater truth" I've heard it defined, like fairy tales) to actual events, your point is reversed.
> He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.
(Not to mention killing all the firstborns of Egypt, wiping out the entire population of the Earth except for Noah's family, yadda yadda.)
No this is just one example. Estimates of how many people got killed and/or massacred by the prophet to bring us islam range from 10 000 to 100 000.
Individual people murdered by the prophet or his assassins (on his direct orders, excluding massacres of entire villages/groups/caravans/muslims), according to muslim's own history, is about 1220 people (most were "convicted" by him, the victims not even knowing there was a trial. That's how islam works : muslims would go to the prophet, explain the situation, the prophet would convict someone to death and send a squad of muslims to go kill the man/woman).
A girl wearing ornaments, went out at Medina. Somebody struck her with a stone.
She was brought to the Prophet while she was still alive. Allah's Apostle asked
her, "Did such-and-such a person strike you?" She raised her head, denying
that. He asked her a second time, saying, "Did so-and-so strike you?" She
raised her head, denying that. He said for the third time, "Did so-and-so
strike you?" She lowered her head, agreeing. Allah's Apostle then sent for the
killer and killed him between two stones.
Islam/muslims (the Mughals to be exact) also hold the title of biggest massacre in history. The Mughal invasion of India was a massacre that lasted almost 1300 years and estimates of the death toll range from 60 million to 300 million people. Before the massacre India bordered Russia. Ironically a region of Afghanistan is still called "Hindu Kush" or massacre of Hindus.
They're no more quiet than when say a white Christian lunatic (Breivik) shot 77 people to death and injured over 300. The vast majority of them will denounce both acts, but otherwise they're pretty quiet. Which goes for most people, really, none of my non-muslim friends have gone to any demonstrations lately or spoke out publicly. Sure there are people who do it, but that goes for muslims, too. It's not always very well reported, but if you go and look you'll find a shit ton of muslim leaders denounce such attacks, for example today the French Muslim Council called it an "attack on democracy", barbaric, an attack on freedom of the press etc. And you don't really see anyone speak out against those Muslim organisations like CFCM which is said to represent between 3.5 and 5 million muslims in France. And these aren't just formal organisations, they often have deep ties to the community, particularly with direct links to formal networks of all mosques in the country.
I always wonder what it'd really look like. I'm not religious but family is. They look at attacks like these with disgust. But he's not a well known individual, he has no place on TV to 'publicly speak out'. What would that even look like? Public persons tend to speak out against attacks like these without exception. Today the Muslim Mayor of Rotterdam did, and a Muslim member of the Labor party has planned demonstrations with a large Moroccan youth movement coinciding with demonstrations planned in France.
>The manifesto states its author is "100 percent Christian", but he is not "excessively religious" and considers himself a "cultural Christian" and a "modern-day crusader". His manifesto states "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie", calls religion a crutch and a source for drawing mental strength, and says "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment." Regarding the term cultural Christian, which he says means preserving European culture, he notes, "It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy...)" Furthermore, Breivik stated that "myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God." Nevertheless, he stated that he planned to pray to God seeking for his help during his attacks. //
I described myself as a "cultural christian" as a teenager, I was agnostic and acted atheistically (ie not a Christian). He surely means he wants to maintain 'Western' culture rather than allow Islamisation. That's not "Christian", if he were a Christian terrorist the aim of the terror would be to convert people to Christianity or punish them for not being/opposing Christians. He was, according to this, not bothered by any non-Christians as long as they didn't seek to change Western culture.
If Breivik had cried "for Jesus" or said he was "killing those who offended God by opposing Christianity" then the Pope, Archbishops, and other leaders of formalised Christian congregations would have been giving statements against it at the drop of a hat.
Something that reddit doesn't care about at all. I was wondering if no post about this event was on HN's frontpage because it tries to avoid political/flame wars. But now this is on the frontpage 5 hours after... And it's not even relevant.
Not sure why you think it's not relevant? Je Suis charlie is the phrase being used to show support and solidarity.
(This is an unfortunate language coincidence.)
It's not "as relevant" as an article explaining the story, the wikipedia page, ...