Huh…no ?
Maybe it’s because I don’t run around looking for reasons to be offended, but I haven’t noticed anything worth mentioning. Seriously.
In my opinion you are going a little far.
Let’s not forget that 99% of Muslims comdemn violence.
What we need to do is encourage normal Muslims to speak up against that 1% garbage (I agree that that 1% is extremely problematic).
The problem is that moderated Muslims tend to be shit-scared of the extremists.
The bad 1% needs to be marginalised by all means possible. People with Salafist and extremist affiliation, or any group that makes the apology of violence against “infidels” for example, need to be ostracised, deported if needed.
I don’t think anyone is running around looking for reasons to be offended on a finance forum but in my short time here I’ve seen some pretty unsavoury remarks and attitudes go completely unchecked.
Isuldurr was clearly trolling and trying to get a rise out of people, it’s not like he was actually going to behead Geo or pile us all up in human pryamids abu graib style.
Okay, of ethnic / racial nature ?
I am genuinely asking because I haven’t noticed.
While 99 percent may oppose violence, many are bot fully integrated in western society and are not fully accepting of our values. This allows these undercurrents to develop. The difference in the last twenty years is there is so much immigration that certain ghettos are being created where integration is no longer needed to survive. Accordingly, these folks aren’t bothering to accept our values. Further, it encourages those unwilling to live fully as western people to move to France, Germany, Canada and the US knowing that they can do just fine being insane radicals. Folks moving here need to want to fully adopt our values, in fact they need to. It shouldn’t be an option. The ghettoisation needs to end, as it’s a root cause of these problems. The left will scream its a lack of opportunity to assimilate and get ahead. I will claim it’s a lack of necessity.
There was that lawyer thread a few weeks back that was just thinly guised racist drivel. One or two of us pointed that out and a bunch of people said it wasn’t and that they found it “interesting.” To give you a taste of it, the thread claimed that black people in the United States frequently give up their children to the state so they can keep driving their cadillacs. Many people found such assertions “interesting”…
^ That was one example from the author’s claimed experience with a “client,” not a claim of common occurance or desire among blacks.
^^On another note, Geo, I like how you think.
Re-read it. The “lawyer” was saying he had seen such behavior among so many of his “clients” that he inferred that it must universal within that culture.
Hold onto your keyboard: posit that perhaps the missive was not, in fact, penned by an attorney with a predominantely African-African clientele who was sharing dispassionate observations, but rather by someone simply pretending to be such! Suddenly it becomes less of an “interesting” read but rather a work of simple racism.
Aye, that’s why I posted “claimed experience.” Who knows.
I don’t think you can just say that 99% of Muslims worldwide are against acts of fundamentaist violence but are just scared. Is there a study backing this up? I spent significant time in Egypt and Kuwait and briefly dated a Kuwaiti (while she was living in the country) who was about as open minded as they come over there. During one discussion I made the point that it was morally backwards that they would execute people in Iran who had converted to Christianity. She had to stop and think about it and I had to gently win her over to the view through debate because she was still a devout Muslim and the Koran clearly states that it is better you should die than denounce Islam. So in her view the executions were carried out as a service to the victim. True story.
^ Yes, I too question how moderate the moderates are.
I have no problem with its right to exist. I have a problem with people declaring the terrorists won if their work isn’t shown after their death.
I can see where FT is coming from, I just don’t agree.
Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-charlie-hebdo-limits-free-expression-121639260.html
^ I disagree with the Pope. Well, kind of. I’m against rules on freedom of expression. But I think people should try to be nice most of the time. That said, the Hebdo drawings are not offensive in a western view and therefore, too bad. I am offended Islamists make their women cover up. I don’t go to Saudi and flip out and tell them to change. We draw cartoons of things in jest. That’s western life. Don’t like our way? Head elsewhere.
nowhere in the Koran does it say that killing is okay so any true Muslim would denounce fundamentalist violence. fatwas and violence are promoted through Sharia law. true muslims must denounce Sharia law and accept the word of the Koran as the be all and end all of their religion if they wish to peacefully move forward. similar to how protestants wished to remove the power of the church from dictating how to be a christian, muslims must basically dismantle Iran and start over.
MLA, Muslims in Kuwait must really love when you tell them what being a true Muslim is. As the one true arbitor of what is Muslim, you should tell the people of Egypt , Mauritania , Sudan, Afghanistan , Iran , Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan , Qatar, Saudi Arabia , Yemen , and certain regions in Indonesia , Malaysia, Nigeria , and the United Arab Emirates about their mustake surrounding Sharia law. It’s gonna be a tough sell in Saudi Arabia, you know with them having Mecca and all. And since Iran basically is Shia, have fun telling Muslims everywhere that the Shia sect must be dismantled from power, I really doubt that’ll cause any form of conflict.
“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter… and fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is for Allah.” (Quran 2:191)
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Quaran 9:5)
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. 2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. 2:244 Fight in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is Hearer, Knower. 5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.
According to Reuven Firestone, Ibn Kathir held that four of the “sword verses” refer specifically to “four types of people against whom the Muslims are obligated to fight: 9:5 refers to fighting the idolaters; 9:29 refers to fighting the Scriptuaries until they pay the poll tax; 9:73 refers to fighting those who outwardly appear as Muslims but who actually oppose Muhammad and the community of Islam; and 49:9 refers to fighting Muslims who unjustly oppress other Muslims.”
I’ve been hearing a few people during the last week on various media platforms and a common theme seems to reasonate. There seems to be a double standard in Charlie Hebdo’s attacks. There’s one religion that seems to never be targeted. I did some reseach and found the following. Very surprising that a satirical mag would can someone over this. You can read more about this event by using google:
“On 2 July 2008, a column by the cartoonist Siné (Maurice Sinet) appeared in Charlie Hebdo citing a news item that Jean Sarkozy, son of Nicolas Sarkozy, had announced his intention to convert to Judaism before marrying his fiancée, a Jewish heiress. Siné added, “he’ll go far, this lad!”[17] After this led to complaints of anti-Semitism in some quarters, Siné was fired by Philippe Val, the chief editor, on 15 July. Siné subsequently sued successfully for unfair dismissal and won damages of €40,000. Charlie Hebdo appealed and lost; the damages awarded were increased to €90,000.”
I find this surprising. Is the source legit ? In any case the Jews are very powerful in France. That is a fact.