French church attacked by terrorists

[cullennz]

And again, one wouldn't ask Americans to apologise for lone nutters in other countries.

Agreed

 

[Belz...]

Agreed

This two-sided issue is rather surreal. On the one hand, yes, Islam is a particular source of radicalisation, these days, and it's foolish to pretend that it isn't, as if admitting that it is somehow would mean that Muslims are a problem per se. On the other hand, Muslims in general are in fact not a problem per se; so long as they respect the laws and cultures of the places they live in, there's no reason to kick them out, and to pretend that they're all suspect undermines the very foundation of western philosphy.

The solution seems more to a) remove sources of alienation for people in your country and b) seek to end the propaganda (ISIS, mainly) that helps to push them towards a specific, terrorist agenda.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

No. The Battle of Badr occurred when Medinan forces marched out to meet an approaching Meccan army after back and forth raids between the two sides.

Commanders in battles intended to consolidate their own wealth and power are normally called warlords. This, today, translates into the insistence on a global Caliphate, essentially administered as would a warlord, until all - all, not some, all peoples - are subjugated. Not convinced, won over, or freely consenting, but subjugated. This is Islam.

"The Takbīr (تَكْبِير), also transcribed Tekbir or Takbeer, is the term for the Arabic phrase Allāhu Akbar (الله أكبر), usually translated as "God is [the] greatest".[1][2] It is a common Islamic Arabic expression, used in various contexts by Muslims; in formal prayer, in the call for prayer (adhān),[3] as an informal expression of faith, in times of distress, or to express resolute determination or defiance."... That's your "fighting words"?

Yes, very much so, since it translates as you stated it: greatest. Not great; greatest. In context, meaning his followers and their actions are also rightfully superior. Truculent and offensive.

Except it's not. There's an entire tradition of contentious and different views of what Muhammad's "school of thought" was, tafsir, because Muslims haven't exactly been able to agree on one single interpretation since the very moment he died and there was a power struggle over who they thought he wanted to succeed him.

Nice misdirect. Main disagreement is on succession - an entirely unsurprising result in a warlord religion - not on the five pillars. The five pillars are quite enough, thanks. All versions start with the Shadada, which according to Mohamed's own instructions, is to be shouted from minarets. Work through that a second, with blinders off. Substitute the name of Donald Trump and see how it sounds.

But let's not mince words. We are speaking of a single individual, not a tradition. The Judaeo-Christian tradition to which Mohamed made claim includes centuries of learning and adapting, modifying the earliest tribal commands. The books of Judges alone are a lesson cautioning against, ahem, theocracy. This is beside the important added perspectives Christianity added. You can of course agree with the tradition and believe in it or not, but Mohamed simply said it was all preamble to him. This with there being nothing, however, in the tradition having to do with his sort of nonsense; his nonsense violating the Ten Commandments, repeatedly, and most often when someone insults him or refuses to acknowlege him. (Getting a better sense of the Shadada as also being fighting words, now?)

The guy was a deluded, violent man who did not even know the traditions he said to represent, ignored all the learning incorporated in them, and who savagely murdered all around him when he was shown the clear, abundant error of his fevered imaginings. Far more similar in character and self-serving narcissism to an L. Ron Hubbard than to any other historical figure.

Is Islam an Abrahamic religion? No.
Was Mohamed a member or exponent of that tradition? No.
Did Mohamed demand the death of those who understood these two points? Yes.

Warlord. Cash-seeking, slave-wanting, child-molesting warlord. To follow this guy is to enter Bizarro's school of upside-down ethics.

 

[McHrozni]

I'm not.

I'm saying why hoards of Muslims don't protest en masse.

They have enough grief at airports.

You are making excuses, and they grow ever more pathetic. They have "enough grief at airports", so they don't do the very thing that would reduce that grief. You reached the limit of your imagination, I think. Can you please explain why you're making the excuses now?

Strangely some groups don't feel the need to apologise for an American nutter

Irrelevant comparison, for reasons that are readily obvious.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Per 47:4 (and especially as al-Tabari understood it), the additional choices are ransom them or freely let them go.

In other words, the standing orders are still to fight and kill religious enemies, the only abrogation done is to widen the options of what is to be done with captives.

My criticisms stands unmoved.

McHrozni

 

[Belz...]

Is Islam an Abrahamic religion? No.

Wait, isn't it?

<checks>

Why, yes it is.

 

[Belz...]

You are making excuses, and they grow ever more pathetic. They have "enough grief at airports", so they don't do the very thing that would reduce that grief.

Like what? Apologising for what other individuals have done? I don't believe in guilt by association.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Is that all they can muster? Cutting the throat of some defenseless old man because they can't make it to die in Syria?

I say let them. Let this trash kill themselves here while their precious caliphate is being reduced to rubble and their "illustrious leader" is forced to hide like a rat. How many can they kill? A hundred? Maybe a couple of thousands? That's nothing in comparison their own losses. It's only a matter of time before they are completely defeated.

I must admit the thought crossed my mind that, in terms of simple attrition, it cost them two young men dead to kill one octogenarian.

On the other hand, other outcomes were hypothetically available. Broadly speaking I'd have preferred one where nobody got killed.

No, I don't have a magic solution.

 

[A'isha]

Oh well in that case, I guess its OK

I was merely pointing out that, contrary to metacristi's assertion that no prophet would ever approve of such a thing, there is in fact quite ample precedent of prophets doing exactly that.

In other words, the standing orders are still to fight and kill religious enemies, the only abrogation done is to widen the options of what is to be done with captives.

Yes, al-Tabari's position is that when you meet the polytheists in battle, one can either kill them, ransom them, or simply let them go. His position is something of a "middle ground" among the various different views of 9:5 that I listed.

 

[A'isha]

Commanders in battles intended to consolidate their own wealth and power are normally called warlords.

He was the leader of a city-state in conflict with another city-state.

But we're getting pretty far afield from your video maker lying about the contents of the sources she cited.

This, today, translates into the insistence on a global Caliphate, essentially administered as would a warlord, until all - all, not some, all peoples - are subjugated. Not convinced, won over, or freely consenting, but subjugated. This is Islam.

It may be the Islam of ISIS, but it's certainly not the Islam of the many other Muslims that ISIS has killed (which is why, of course, ISIS killed those other Muslims in the first place).

Yes, very much so, since it translates as you stated it: greatest. Not great; greatest. In context, meaning his followers and their actions are also rightfully superior. Truculent and offensive.

It's also been a standard element of religions since long before the Romans called their chief deity Jupiter Optimus Maximus ("Jupiter the Best and Greatest").

Nice misdirect. Main disagreement is on succession - an entirely unsurprising result in a warlord religion - not on the five pillars.

No, not really. The Shia even have a different version of the shahada than the Sunnis do, in addition to differing from them on issues like 'A'isha's age or the role of batin and zahir.

The books of Judges alone are a lesson cautioning against, ahem, theocracy.

The Book of Judges is also quite clear that the flaw of said judges was not that they applied God's law on Earth.

Is Islam an Abrahamic religion? No.

Yes, and quite explicitly so.

 

[Craig B]

I'm not.

I'm saying why hoards of Muslims don't protest en masse.

They have enough grief at airports.

Strangely some groups don't feel the need to apologise for an American nutter

The main reason why French Muslims don't demonstrate against ISIS is presumably the same reason why I don't demonstrate against ISIS in the UK. Our government is already opposed to ISIS. When ISIS terrorists commit atrocities, the French security forces arrest or kill them.

But I do demonstrate against the oppression of Palestinians because Western governments have an attitude towards israel and Palestine with which I don't agree.

How many mass demonstrations are there in the USA against N Korean government crimes? Very few. Does that mean US citizens approve of these crimes?

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's also been a standard element of religions since long before the Romans called their chief deity Jupiter Optimus Maximus ("Jupiter the Best and Greatest").

So that's where Kim Il Sung got the idea. Interesting how brilliant ideas cross cultural boundaries.

The Book of Judges is also quite clear that the flaw of said judges was not that they applied God's law on Earth.

As I understand that bit of scripture ... well, this summary at wikipedia is pretty decent.

The stories follow a consistent pattern: the people are unfaithful to Yahweh and he therefore delivers them into the hands of their enemies; the people repent and entreat Yahweh for mercy, which he sends in the form of a leader or champion (a "judge"); the judge delivers the Israelites from oppression and they prosper, but soon they fall again into unfaithfulness and the cycle is repeated.

The story there is that the leaders who arrived were on board with God, while the great unwashed had great difficulty maintaining the plot. That pattern does not appear to be repeated in the Islamic world, though perhaps the waiting for the 12th Imam is related. The restoration of the lost Caliphate perhaps echoes this pattern, not sure. The narrative is at least similar.

To go back to a previous point:

By citing Abraham's precedent, are you blaming the more bloodthirsty characteristics of early Islam on the Jews in an ideological or philosophical sense? I am only being partly a wise guy here. Islam did not arise in a vacuum. The evidence that its founders soaked in what was around them is pretty substantial. What is striking to me, however, is the difference in how both of the offshoots of the original Hebraic/Jewish belief spread for the first three centuries of their existence. Christianity spread as an underground and predominantly passive movement. Islam, as an arm of conquest. (In time, as Christianity became the mainstream belief of an empire, that distinction narrowed.)

 

[A'isha]

So that's where Kim Il Sung got the idea. Interesting how brilliant ideas cross cultural boundaries.

Also the Transformers.

By citing Abrahams precedent, are you blaming the more bloodthirsty characteristics of early Islam on the Jews in an ideological or philosophical sense? I am only being partly a wise guy here. Islam was not created in a vacuum. The evidence that its founders soaked in what was around them is pretty substantial.

Not directly, no. The correlation between Jewish law and the judgment on the Qurayza is interesting in how exactly they parallel each other, but the connection between the two is obscure. I've read arguments that say it could be anything from the early Muslims absorbing the Jewish/Christian milieu that was prevalent in Arabia at the time, to Sa'd's judgment being specifically a "I'm judging you by your own law" sort of thing, to a later interpolation into the account of what happened.

What is striking to me, however, is the difference in how both of these offshoots of the original Hebraic/Jewish belief spread for the first three centuries of their existence. Christianity spread as an underground and predominantly passive movement. Islam, as an arm of conquest. (In time, as Christianity became the mainstream belief of an empire, that distinction narrowed.)

A historian whose name I unfortunately can't recall right now (and I'm away from my books at the moment) once described it as the two religions starting at opposite ends but running to meet each other in the middle.

 

[Darth Rotor]

A historian whose name I unfortunately can't recall right now (and I'm away from my books at the moment) once described it as the two religions starting at opposite ends but running to meet each other in the middle.

The one difference seems to have been that in the one case, nobody was in charge (Central ideological basis) while in the other on arose. But we are digressing here, since the actual story we are talking about is:
Two muslims enter a church and kill a priest at the altar, and the Pope pretends there isn't an ideological war going on. (At least in his public utterances). Strikes me as a case of willful stupidity, given the abuses heaped on Syrian Orthodox Christians, Copts, Chaldeans, and Palestinian Christians for the past decade.

 

[Craig B]

Two muslims enter a church and kill a priest at the altar, and the Pope pretends there isn't an ideological war going on. (At least in his public utterances). Strikes me as a case of willful stupidity, given the abuses heaped on Syrian Orthodox Christians, Copts, Chaldeans, and Palestinian Christians for the past decade.

According to the NY Times, the Pope said

But with anti-Muslim sentiment growing after the recent Islamic State-inspired terrorist attacks in France and Germany, Pope Francis emphasized that he did not see a religious conflict. “I am not speaking of a war of religions,” he said. “Religions don’t want war. The others want war.”​

He denied the existence of a "religious conflict", and isn't quoted as saying anything about an "ideological war". Can you give me your source?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

This is an aside, but doesn't¨"Allahu Akbar" literally mean "God is greater", and technically its use compares the size or magnificence of various things to God? E.g. "God is greater than this time of crisis", "This city is so large, perhaps only God is greater", "Your deed is great, but don't be too prideful, for God is greater still", etc.

 

[McHrozni]

Like what? Apologising for what other individuals have done? I don't believe in guilt by association.

Like doing what I wrote in an earlier post. Do try to follow, will you?

Incessant apologies are still sought from Germany and Japan, two societies who produced utter horror, but were also completely rehabilitated. This wasn't achieved by claiming only individuals carried blame though.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

The main reason why French Muslims don't demonstrate against ISIS is presumably the same reason why I don't demonstrate against ISIS in the UK. Our government is already opposed to ISIS. When ISIS terrorists commit atrocities, the French security forces arrest or kill them.

But I do demonstrate against the oppression of Palestinians because Western governments have an attitude towards israel and Palestine with which I don't agree.

How many mass demonstrations are there in the USA against N Korean government crimes? Very few. Does that mean US citizens approve of these crimes?

Your imagination is notably better than that of cullnez, he could learn a thing or two. Its BS if course: The non-violent Muslims have so much to gain from such demonstrations your comparison is ridicolus. Ever heard of Islamophobia? That's how you beat it. Ever heard of social exclusion? Ditto. And so on and on.

As I said earlier, I'm not really interested in how many amusing exuses you can cook up, but why are you making them in the first place? There is no good reason to do so you know

McHrozni

 

[theprestige]

The main reason why French Muslims don't demonstrate against ISIS is presumably the same reason why I don't demonstrate against ISIS in the UK. Our government is already opposed to ISIS. When ISIS terrorists commit atrocities, the French security forces arrest or kill them.

But I do demonstrate against the oppression of Palestinians because Western governments have an attitude towards israel and Palestine with which I don't agree.

How many mass demonstrations are there in the USA against N Korean government crimes? Very few. Does that mean US citizens approve of these crimes?

I don't protest against the North Korean government because they're not committing crimes in the name of my value system, and casting suspicion on all of us who profess that value system.

How would th the radicalization of young Muslims in France be affected, if the overwhelming, vocal message of the French Muslim community was openly anti-ISIS? If the French Muslim community took a public stand alongside their fellow citizens in their common struggle against Islamic extremism abroad and at home?

 

[Giz]

According to the NY Times, the Pope said

But with anti-Muslim sentiment growing after the recent Islamic State-inspired terrorist attacks in France and Germany, Pope Francis emphasized that he did not see a religious conflict.​

Part of his job description is being able to believe the impossible.