French church attacked by terrorists

[Belz...]

The real problem is that some people are so dumbsided by the mantra of "all religions are equal" and the postulate that "Islam is not to blame" they're unwilling to consider the evidence to the contrary.

Now, now. That's not entirely true. They're more than happy to blame Christianity as a whole for tons of stuff.

 

[Caper]

In the no good deed goes unpunished department, it turns out the mosque that helped produce this gem of a human being was built on land donated by the same church (or parish) that was attacked..... A giant metaphor for all of Europe really.

 

[A'isha]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/mosque...-killed-inaugurated-on-land-gifted-by-church/

The imam of the mosque said he was “stunned” by the murder of the local priest, Jacques Hamel, who he described as a friend.

“I don’t understand, all of our prayers go to his family and the Catholic community,” said Mohammed Karabila, who heads the regional council of Muslim worship for Haute Normandie.

It was in this mosque that the funeral ceremony was held for Imad Ibn Ziaten, a 30-year-old French paratrooper who was killed on March 11, 2012 by jihadist Mohamed Merah.

It was the first murder in Merah’s spree which also included the killing of three Jewish children and a rabbi outside a Toulouse Jewish day school over a week after, and the murders of two French Muslim soldiers several days before that.

“It is a total shock, it brings back the pain,” said Ibn Ziaten’s mother Latifa, who launched an association to fight Islamic radicalization after her son’s death.

[...]

Karabila said he had met with Hamel on several occasions and had been part of an interfaith committee for the past 18 months.

“We talked about religion and how to live together. It has been 18 months that civilians have been attacked, now they are attacking religious symbols, using our religion as a pretext. It is no longer possible,” he said.

He said he was “stunned by the death of my friend. He was someone who gave his life to others. We are dumbfounded at the mosque.”

 

[Darth Rotor]

The imam of the mosque said he was “stunned” by the murder of the local priest, Jacques Hamel, who he described as a friend.

Like many clerics, in a variety of religions, this imam needs to be hit with a clue bat.

 

[McHrozni]

Now, now. That's not entirely true. They're more than happy to blame Christianity as a whole for tons of stuff.

Hm, yeah, you're right about that.

How about the mantra "all religions are equal, but some are more equal than others"?

McHrozni

 

[Tolls]

In the no good deed goes unpunished department, it turns out the mosque that helped produce this gem of a human being...

I take it you take the same view with whatever churches any mass shooters in the US belonged to?

Because from what I've seen, including the stuff Aisha just posted, the mosque seems to be a little shocked by all this.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I look foward to His Popeness explaining this latest atrocity in terms of what goes around comes around:

Any day now.

He has claimed (assuming the BBC translation is correct) that "This is a a war but it is not a war of religion". However the part of his statement that really jumped out at me-:

All the religions want peace, the others want war

I find this almost off hand disowning of psychopathic murders within the religious camps ridiculous and completely unjustifiable, while grouping the world into 'the religions' and defining them as peaceful appears to automatically group the non-religious, however innocent, in with the murderers.

Lucky there's no long running antipathy between the Catholic Church and Islam running back a millenium or so that anyone might look back at and wonder if everything really is the fault of the non-religious isn't it.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... "This is a a war but it is not a war of religion"...

(Pardon the heavy snip). I think the Pope has a real problem on his hands, in that there are followers of his who are hostage to Islam and being slaughtered.

However, I agree this is more than a war of religion. It is a war of coming of age for humanity, of realizing no truths are totally "truthy," of needing to accept the blasphemous: no religion/myth/dogma is universal. Be it fundies in the US, Islamists, or nationalists, the recourse to myth is constant, and the rejection of evidence-based reasoning pathological. In this sense, joining forces with any of the other truculent truths, as in the case of Trump, only guarantees the problem goes unidentified and will come back to haunt in whatever absolutist form the religious or political nonsense takes next.

Most profoundly, we tend to mistake our models of reality as being wholly and unreasonably true, faithful and eternally true, when they are approximate and provisional. Good enough to do science, but not written in stone.

* * *

All that said, I came across a fairly brief overview of Islamic teachings by a young woman who seems to know what she refers to on Youtube today. Most decidedly not a simplistic rant. She consistently cites chapter and verse in both the Koran and the hadith to calmly make some rather devastating observations. I suggest readers force themselves to sit through the scriptural account of what was done, under Mohamed's direct eye and command, to a tribe in Medina.

I must admit, I've been avoiding looking at the actual content of Islam for some months now, maybe a year or more, as I cannot help but find it astoundingly, profoundly evil. It is very hard to escape the observation that there is Mohamed's Islam, a horror show, and Muslim apostates who do not follow his example, but no true "moderate" Islam.

Mohamed was a warlord; there was, by the end of his ministry, no moderation in his own words and deeds, which are the only true example of how to follow the teachings in the Koran. To me, this makes apologists for a "peaceful" Islam suspect as either deluded wishful thinkers - best case, or willful obfuscators with a clear agenda - worst case.

Neither offers any way forward for dealing with very real threat of, let us summarize the words and deeds of Mohamed himself as "Islam," when they are actually put into force or imitated.

 

[McHrozni]

I take it you take the same view with whatever churches any mass shooters in the US belonged to?

Is there any evidence these shooters were radicalized by the teachings of various churches, are there churches worldwide who call for mass shootings, and so on? You know the drill - the evidence is pointed out to you and you go to extraordinary (and rather amusing) efforts to steer the conversation elsewhere.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Because from what I've seen, including the stuff Aisha just posted, the mosque seems to be a little shocked by all this.

Considering the severity of attrocities made in the name of Islam lately I'm surprised all these Muslims who abhorr violence and consider it blashpemus and insulting to suggest their holy texts justify the deeds haven't come out in droves to demonstrate against those who usurp their religion.

France has what? 4 million Muslims? If they truly are shocked by the attacks in Nice, why don't they pour out in the streets of France, call for destruction of ISIS and burn an effigy of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, for example?

I'm sure the French government would allow such a display of loyalty to France and hostility towards it's enemy. A million participans should be reasonable goal, twice that is achievable. Why the reluctance? Why the excuses?

McHrozni

 

[Tolls]

Is there any evidence these shooters were radicalized by the teachings of various churches, are there churches worldwide who call for mass shootings, and so on? You know the drill - the evidence is pointed out to you and you go to extraordinary (and rather amusing) efforts to steer the conversation elsewhere.

McHrozni

Yes I know the drill.
Is there any evidence that the mosque he attended radicalised him?

Because I haven't seen any.

 

[Belz...]

However, I agree this is more than a war of religion. It is a war of coming of age for humanity, of realizing no truths are totally "truthy," of needing to accept the blasphemous: no religion/myth/dogma is universal.

Considering what I see on the internet, it seems that we're reversing course on that, if we use the broad definition of "dogma".

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Considering what I see on the internet, it seems that we're reversing course on that, if we use the broad definition of "dogma".

Don't say that. Lie to me. I'm in denial.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Considering the severity of attrocities made in the name of Islam lately I'm surprised all these Muslims who abhorr violence and consider it blashpemus and insulting to suggest their holy texts justify the deeds haven't come out in droves to demonstrate against those who usurp their religion.

France has what? 4 million Muslims? If they truly are shocked by the attacks in Nice, why don't they pour out in the streets of France, call for destruction of ISIS and burn an effigy of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, for example?

I'm sure the French government would allow such a display of loyalty to France and hostility towards it's enemy. A million participans should be reasonable goal, twice that is achievable. Why the reluctance? Why the excuses?

McHrozni

I don't see non-muslims doing that, so they must be just as guilty !

 

[GlennB]

...
I must admit, I've been avoiding looking at the actual content of Islam for some months now, maybe a year or more, as I cannot help but find it astoundingly, profoundly evil. It is very hard to escape the observation that there is Mohamed's Islam, a horror show, and Muslim apostates who do not follow his example, but no true "moderate" Islam.
...

Yes.

And if you try to analyse even a single specific teaching (wife beating for example, which is supported by the Quran, Hadith and Sira) you'll probably be treated to the view of an Islamic academic or interpreter, a cleric or even the more liberal ways of an entire sect in a country somewhere, while hearing nothing about how a million Muslim kids are being taught the straight-down-the-line interpretation even as we speak.

'A horror show' indeed.

 

[A'isha]

All that said, I came across a fairly brief overview of Islamic teachings by a young woman who seems to know what she refers to on Youtube today. Most decidedly not a simplistic rant. She consistently cites chapter and verse in both the Koran and the hadith to calmly make some rather devastating observations. I suggest readers force themselves to sit through the scriptural account of what was done, under Mohamed's direct eye and command, to a tribe in Medina.

I watched that video. In it, she says that "when Muhammad was chased out of Mecca for his warmongering" (which is incorrect in itself), he attempted to take control of the tribes at Medina, the Banu Qurayza. She cites Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 674 and Q 33:26, summarizing them as follows:

"Muhammad had approached the leader of that tribe and he had demanded that they pledge allegiance to him and his troops. The tribe didn't want to do this. They wanted to remain neutral, they didn't want to get into any war that he had with any of the other tribes around or with Mecca. So they denied it and said 'No, we're going to remain neutral.' Muhammad wouldn't have this, so he and his troops tied up all the men and all the boys...and they were all slaughtered one by one."

The problem is that her cited sources don't actually say this. They aren't even close. Ibn Ishaq 674, for instance, actually says:

The enemy of God Huyayy b. Akhtab al-Nadri went out to Ka'b b. Asad al-Qurazi [the chief of the Qurayza tribe] who had made a treaty with the apostle. When Ka'b heard of Huyayy's coming he shut the door of his fort in his face, and when he asked permission to enter he refused to see him, saying that he was a man of ill omen and that he himself was in treaty with Muhammad and did not intend to go back on his word because he had always found him loyal and faithful. Then Huyayy accused him of shutting him out because he was unwilling to let him eat his corn. This so enraged hi that he opened his door. He said 'Good heavens, Ka'b, I have brought you immortal fame and a great army. I have come with Quraysh with their leaders and chiefs which I have halted where the torrent-beds of Ruma meet; and Ghatafan with their leaders and chiefs which I have halted in Dhanab Naqma towards Uhud. They have made a firm agreement and promised me that they will not depart until we have made an end of Muhammad and his men.' Ka'b said: 'By God, you have brought me immortal shame and an empty cloud which has shed its water while it thunders and lightens with nothing in it/ Woe to you Huyayy, leave me as I am, for I have always found him loyal and faithful.' Huyayy kept on wheedling Ka'b until at last he gave way in giving him a solemn promise that if Quraysh and Ghatafan returned without having killed Muhammad he would enter his fort with him and await his fate. Thus Ka'b broke his promise and cut loose from the bond that was between him and the apostle.

That is, according to her own cited source, the Qurayza didn't reject an alliance with Muhammad because they wanted to remain neutral in his wars with Mecca, they had a treaty with Muhammad which they broke in order to join with the Meccan armies which were then laying siege to Medina.

Ibn Ishaq then describes how he sent the chiefs of two other allied tribes, the Banu Aws (who were also allies of the Banu Qurayza since before Muhammad emigrated to Medina) and the Banu Khazraj to investigate the reports that the Qurayza had broken their treaty and joined the Quraysh, saying "If it is true give me an enigmatic message which I can understand, and do not undermine the people's confidence: and if they are loyal to their agreement speak out openly before the people." The chiefs reported back to Muhammad that the Qurayza were openly disclaiming their agreement with Muhammad. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 675) Muhammad's response during the siege itself was to send the improbably-named Nu'aym b. Mas'ud b. 'Amir b. Unayf b. Tha'laba b. Qunfud b. Hilal b. Khalawa b. Ashja' b. Rayth b Ghatafan to disrupt the alliance between the Quraysh and the Qurayza, convincing the Qurayza to demand hostages from the Quraysh in return for their military support of the Quraysh in the upcoming battle and then telling the Quraysh that if the Qurayza demanded hostages in return for sending troops to help the Quraysh it was a sign that the Qurayza were planning to double-cross the Quraysh. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 681)

Her other cited source, Q 33:26, says the same thing, "And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners." (Yusuf Ali translation) - the "them" that the People of the Book aided were the Quraysh during the Meccan siege of Medina.

All of her nonsense regarding her claims about what Ibn Ishaq and the Qur'an says regarding the Qurayza takes up almost half the video, and I didn't bother with any more after that. It's ironic that she titled her video "Sorry liberals, there's only 1 interpretation of Islam - Muhammad's", since she apparently has no problem ignoring what her sources actually say so she can apply a rather creative "interpretation" of her own to them. Her video is ******** and not to be trusted.

 

[HenryLee]

I don't see non-muslims doing that, so they must be just as guilty !

When non-moslems do it the press calls them racists, xenophobes, Nazis...all in an attempt to discredit them.

When moslems do it Sadiq Khan calls them Uncle Toms.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I watched that video. In it, she says that "when Muhammad was chased out of Mecca for his warmongering" (which is incorrect in itself), he attempted to take control of the tribes at Medina, the Banu Qurayza. She cites Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 674 and Q 33:26, summarizing them as follows:

"Muhammad had approached the leader of that tribe and he had demanded that they pledge allegiance and his troops. The tribe didn't want to do this. They wanted to remain neutral, they didn't want to get into any war that he had with any of the other tribes around or with Mecca. So they denied it and said 'No, we're going to remain neutral.' Muhammad wouldn't have this, so he and his troops tied up all the men and all the boys...and they were all slaughtered one by one."

The problem is that her cited sources don't actually say this. They aren't even close. Ibn Ishaq 674, for instance, actually says:



That is, according to her own cited source, the Qurayza didn't reject an alliance with Muhammad because they wanted to remain neutral in his wars with Mecca, they had a treaty with Muhammad which they broke in order to join with the Meccan armies which were then laying siege to Medina.

Ibn Ishaq then describes how he sent the chiefs of two other allied tribes, the Banu Aws (who were also allies of the Banu Qurayza since before Muhammad emigrated to Medina) and the Banu Khazraj to investigate the reports that the Qurayza had broken their treaty and joined the Quraysh, saying "If it is true give me an enigmatic message which I can understand, and do not undermine the people's confidence: and if they are loyal to their agreement speak out openly before the people." The chiefs reported back to Muhammad that the Qurayza were openly disclaiming their agreement with Muhammad. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 675) Muhammad's response during the siege itself was to send the improbably-named Nu'aym b. Mas'ud b. 'Amir b. Unayf b. Tha'laba b. Qunfud b. Hilal b. Khalawa b. Ashja' b. Rayth b Ghatafan to disrupt the alliance between the Quraysh and the Qurayza, convincing the Qurayza to demand hostages from the Quraysh in return for their military support of the Quraysh in the upcoming battle and then telling the Quraysh that if the Qurayza demanded hostages in return for sending troops to help the Quraysh it was a sign that the Qurayza were planning to double-cross the Quraysh. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 681)

Her other cited source, Q 33:26, says the same thing, "And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners." (Yusuf Ali translation) - the "them" that the People of the Book aided were the Quraysh during the Meccan siege of Medina.

All of her nonsense regarding her claims about what Ibn Ishaq and the Qur'an says regarding the Qurayza takes up almost half the video, and I didn't bother with any more after that. It's ironic that she titled her video "Sorry liberals, there's only 1 interpretation of Islam - Muhammad's", since she apparently has no problem ignoring what her sources actually say so she can apply a rather creative "interpretation" of her own to them. Her video is ******** and not to be trusted.

I see. Warlord.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Excellent piece by a secular humanist on the attack on the priest.

[Please don't spam his site; let's converse here. Thx.]

 

[A'isha]

I see. Warlord.

I point out that the maker of your linked video flat-out lied about what her cited sources actually said, and what you get from my post is only that it confirms her statement that Muhammad was a warlord because his city was being beseiged by attacking Meccan armies?