Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

Paris Magazine Shooting


Doro
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Newspaper Edits Female World Leaders Out of Charlie Hebdo March

Yesterday’s historic march across Paris included over 40 world leaders expressing solidarity for France after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, but if you read this Haredi newspaper, you’d believe that none of them were women.

The image that ran on the front page of the Israeli newspaper The Announcer edited two female world leaders out of the image, originally provided by wire service GPO: German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. A third woman in a blue scarf who we can’t identify was also photoshopped out.

Pictured here

Ah, another extreme version of a religion trapped in the Dark Ages. It's a mad world. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that all 3 million copies of Charlie Hebdo have sold out and another 2 million are being printed. The attack has made the magazine well known and now more people are aware of the cartoons, which will keep on coming. Not what the terrorists would have wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that all 3 million copies of Charlie Hebdo have sold out and another 2 million are being printed. The attack has made the magazine well known and now more people are aware of the cartoons, which will keep on coming. Not what the terrorists would have wanted.

They staged it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't tell if you are joking or not since there are people who do think it was either staged or people were set up to do it. Hopefully you are joking.

Wat. For all we know the whole magazine didn't exist. Has anybody held one of them?

Obviously the Seeya (CIA) plays this dirty to discredit Muslims.

See the politimongerMarch was staged, too. Proof!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't get me wrong, for every word I could quote/write about say the Muslims treatment of Jews, I could quote/write far worse about the Christians treatment of them.

 

 

The Muslims were a lot easier on Jerusalem than the Crusaders were in 1099.

 

 

Christians and Jews were still treated as second class citizens though.

 

And if I understand correctly, throughout the Islamic empire, other faiths were ONLY tolerated once the countries had fallen to Islam

 

In other words countries were invaded, took over and became a Muslim state and only then were Christians and Jews allowed to live there, providing of course they paid their special taxes they were charged as they wouldn't convert (and for example in Jerusalem, the wearing of special clothes to show whether they were Jew or Christian, having to walk on the left of Muslims, not allowed saddles on their horses, not allowed to speak at funerals etc etc etc

 

The history of the area that I've read ( a lot) ,  whether the author is Muslim, Christian or Jewish,  depends on how the arguments are obviously put forwards, hence read a Muslim article, they were the good ones, read a Christian article, they were the good ones etc.

 

An interesting read for me was (all good, but page 18 onwards for around the time s we're talking about)  

 

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/The%20Persian%20conquest%20of%20Jerusalem%20in%20614CE%20compared%20with%20Islamic%20conquest%20of%20638CE.pdf

 

 

What that shows to me is that all sides were at one point or another as bad as each other.

 

 

 

Also, quotation needed on those 2000. Given the population at the time that seems... high.

 

 

My mistake, I apologise, too many conversations going on and me typing on a tablet while tired..

 

What I initially quoted in another forum, that I got from from http://www1.american.edu/ted/hpages/jeruselum/muslim.htm and was referring to when I typed that was

 

 

Five centuries of peaceful coexistence elapsed before political events led to centuries of so-called holy wars. However, Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim reintroduced old persecution habits, including the wholesale destruction of two thousand churches throughout the empire, most notoriously the church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which as I said earlier (I think, too many forums)  could simplicity be seen as if the Muslims hadn't destroyed 2000 odd Christian churches in Jerusalem, the crusades  would never have happened.

It was only a joke, but if we are going to go there..

That was in response to the ambushing and murdering of muslim pilgrims in their hundreds, we started it and not only did we start it, it was all part of a plan to steal land and wealth, their retaliation just gave us an excuse for war.

Yes the Muslims did invade and conquer other countries, but that was not the reason behind the crusades, we goaded them into that war for one reason only, land and power.

I'm not saying they didn't do bad things, I'm just saying we've done a lot of bad things too.

But to be honest this has very little to do with what is happening now, it's ancient history and if we dredged up every atrocity throughout history there would be no end to this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to be honest this has very little to do with what is happening now, it's ancient history and if we dredged up every atrocity throughout history there would be no end to this thread.

 

Exactly the point. I despise all religions, but Islam has the focus of my hate because of just how incompatible it is with my own morals. It's a religion that, in the modern world, is still preaching control of women, murder of gays and genocide of people who don't follow an Abrahamic religion. It's a religion that follows a person known to have ordered the slaughter of innocents, condoned the rape of their enemy's women and indulged in paedophilic behaviour (a man they believe to be perfect).

 

So when I hear people attempt to excuse Islam because it's 'minorities' who give it a bad name, or that there are bad people in all religions, or that other religions were bad in the past, it's a non comparison. It downplays the reality of the religion.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Doro and whoever plussed him:

 

Believe what you like, but the facts are there are nearly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world --- it most certainly is a minority of them that are insane and engaged in teaching and acting out the hateful acts you believe are a core of the faith - which they are not.

 

Can we please stop spreading hate and just move on with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe what you like, but the facts are there are nearly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world --- it most certainly is a minority of them that are insane and engaged in teaching and acting out the hateful acts you believe are a core of the faith - which they are not.

Absolutely false. That's 1.6 billion Muslims who believe Muhammad was perfect. That is insane, so hardly a minority at all. Those 'hateful acts', regardless of whether they teach them or not, are part of the scripture. You cannot claim otherwise. It's written down in black and white.

 

Can we please stop spreading hate and just move on with it?

I'd rather not just brush this sort of stuff under the carpet for the sake of a delusion that Islam is mostly harmless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that all 3 million copies of Charlie Hebdo have sold out and another 2 million are being printed. The attack has made the magazine well known and now more people are aware of the cartoons, which will keep on coming. Not what the terrorists would have wanted.

Interesting and already mentioned in the thread days ago, although not followed much.

So what does that tell you, guys? That some pics in some journals about some religion were not the point at all, or that these terrorists are barbra-streisand-level of stupid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting and already mentioned in the thread days ago, although not followed much.

So what does that tell you, guys? That some pics in some journals about some religion were not the point at all, or that these terrorists are barbra-streisand-level of stupid?

I vote the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if I understand correctly, throughout the Islamic empire, other faiths were ONLY tolerated once the countries had fallen to Islam

There isn't an "Islamic empire".

Dominant Muslim society went through many phases. It is true that to degraded to a useless perfectly normal dictatorship in the end, which I define as the end of the Ottoman empire after WW1. The whole phase leading up from ca 1500 is bad.

However, as I mentioned earlier, for extended periods of time, and I mean hundreds of years, Muslim government were a lot more "fair" to their subjects, including non-muslims. The standards of law enforcement, how you could enforce a law that somebody broke to your disadvantage, were much higher than in the West at the time. Standards of medicine were incredibly much higher than in the West, where an urge for stability leads to a suppression of science and distribution of knowledge (publications) including medicine. The only bright thing about that is that at least it was so overdone by those in power than many of them also died needless deaths. Good riddance.

The governmental system that the Muslims had did not scale as populations and societies grew, and that is why it degenerated. By the time that the West did a 180 degree turn and pursued technology the Muslim world had snapped into the mindset of non-cooperating dictatorship clubs, and as a result they missed the train on technology - an effect that strongly influence society today. Many Muslims feel that the West deliberately withheld technology and used it to crush them, but the truth is that it's 100% their own fault for not updating governments. This is a huge problem today, and the perceived injustice is a big part of why some Muslims strike out against the West. Today. (*)

You can also compare it to the bad times in the West when non-cooperation led to that joke that is the Viking age. Nobody works together, nobody is willing to send troops anywhere else than the own backyard. A century goes by where a bunch of axe-wielding ferrymen can do as they please. WTF?

The Muslim world had the same thing happening culminating in the sack of Baghdad, which also marks the end of the area where their government system worked in favor of large parts of society.

There really isn't much fundamental difference there. The question always is, at what point do you make changes when the old system is obviously not working as intended anymore either from scaling, or from other influences such as natural causes or technology or whatever.

(*) ETA: of course today that's actually accurate due to the intellectual property laws that Western cooperations got cast in law everywhere (US I.P. law applies in any country that is smaller than the US due to threats of retaliation)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely false. That's 1.6 billion Muslims who believe Muhammad was perfect. That is insane, so hardly a minority at all. Those 'hateful acts', regardless of whether they teach them or not, are part of the scripture. You cannot claim otherwise. It's written down in black and white.

 

I'd rather not just brush this sort of stuff under the carpet for the sake of a delusion that Islam is mostly harmless.

 

Look Doro, I like you - but you are not THE WORD on Islam, sorry.   Again, your claims that killing gays and mistreating women is in black in white in the tenets is flat out wrong and delusion not the other way around.  That you insist on lumping millions of people into hate loving insanity is what is insane on your part.  And no, I never said Islam - OR ANY RELIGION FOR THAT MATTER - is "mostly harmless" I said that you are spreading hatred around with your bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote the latter.

The world-wide super evil powerful enough and capable of organizing and pulling something like 9/11 is barbra-streisand stupid?

 

You guys should bring your governments down in flames and hang on the first tree every boss in every home defense and secret service agency. With all those budgets and manpower they have, they are apparently scratching their balls all the time instead of tracking and eliminating a bunch of dumb-asses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look Doro, I like you - but you are not THE WORD on Islam, sorry.

No, their scripture is. Though I like the irony that you believe yourself to be a greater authority than even their scripture.

 

Again, your claims that killing gays and mistreating women is in black in white in the tenets is flat out wrong and delusion not the other way around.

Treatment of homosexuals:

'There are several lesser hadith stating, "if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers," "If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses,” "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,” and “Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."'

Qur'an (4:16) - "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone"

Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."

Treatment of women:

Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Qur'an (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..." Allah telling Job to beat his wife (Tafsir).

Abu Dawud (2126) - "A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: 'I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet).' The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: 'She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her'"

Qur'an (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..."

That is just a handful of examples. I suggest you do your research.

That you insist on lumping millions of people into hate loving insanity is what is insane on your part.  And no, I never said Islam - OR ANY RELIGION FOR THAT MATTER - is "mostly harmless" I said that you are spreading hatred around with your bias.

I'm not lumping anyone together. They choose to do that when they take up their chosen label. If their label involves scripture with the sort of primitive stuff that Islam has, then that is their choice. If they worship a paedophillic, sadistic warlord, that's their choice.

But if you think that I can't call them out on it without it being called 'bias', then that's insanity on your part. Your ignorance of the topic does not give you the monopoly on what Islam contains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, their scripture is. Though I like the irony that you believe yourself to be a greater authority than even their scripture.

 

Treatment of homosexuals:

'There are several lesser hadith stating, "if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers," "If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses,” "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,” and “Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."'

Qur'an (4:16) - "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone"

Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."

Treatment of women:

Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Qur'an (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..." Allah telling Job to beat his wife (Tafsir).

Abu Dawud (2126) - "A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: 'I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet).' The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: 'She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her'"

Qur'an (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..."

That is just a handful of examples. I suggest you do your research.

I'm not lumping anyone together. They choose to do that when they take up their chosen label. If their label involves scripture with the sort of primitive stuff that Islam has, then that is their choice. If they worship a paedophillic, sadistic warlord, that's their choice.

But if you think that I can't call them out on it without it being called 'bias', then that's insanity on your part. Your ignorance of the topic does not give you the monopoly on what Islam contains.

 

I suggest you do your own research.  Were you raised in this faith? NO.  Were you educated in it? NO.

 

And while I never claimed to be an authority as you are, I am saying flat out it is not TOUGHT that way, which I do know from personal experience over many years.  You are forgetting that in my own country hatred for Jews and Muslims makes your little rants seem like G rated drivel.  In my own county there are plenty of people who even when I was a child let alone now, would be only too happy to see every SINGLE arab wiped off the face of the earth.  I chose to educate myself on Islam specifically to try and understand why such hatred infused the history of my culture.  It look me a long time and many years to see that nearly all bias was based in nothing but fears of times long gone, and on acts committed by people who are crimminals and crimminal minded, not because their religion told them to be any more than Jewish scripture or Christian verse did to their bretheren.

 

So  ------ NO -----   no matter how many Suras or Hadiths you pull and how many claims to MY ignorance you care to make - had you ever been educated in that faith or lived it from the inside to know what the HELL you are talking about.  Instead you fine comb passages to justify your hate reasoning. As is there are just as many insane verses in the old and new testaments about such nonesense.

 

You are deliberately skirting the issue: you hate.  Period.  Meanwhile, continue to insist that all muslims must be women hating, gay-killing etc.  I am sure you will have a happy life with them in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you do your own research.

Were the black and white quotes not enough for you?

 

Were you raised in this faith? NO.  Were you educated in it? NO.

Were you?

Side note: I was educated in it. My RE class in secondary school was based on the Abrahamic faiths.

 

And while I never claimed to be an authority as you are, I am saying flat out it is not TOUGHT that way, which I do know from personal experience over many years.

No, you're claiming you're an authority enough to say what it does and doesn't contain. So far, you've been shown to be wrong. So much for 'personal experience', eh?

 

You are forgetting that in my own country hatred for Jews and Muslims makes your little rants seem like G rated drivel.  In my own county there are plenty of people who even when I was a child let alone now, would be only too happy to see every SINGLE arab wiped off the face of the earth.  I chose to educate myself on Islam specifically to try and understand why such hatred infused the history of my culture.  It look me a long time and many years to see that nearly all bias was based in nothing but fears of times long gone, and on acts committed by people who are crimminals and crimminal minded, not because their religion told them to be any more than Jewish scripture or Christian verse did to their bretheren.

I can't imagine how I would feel discovering that all those years and all that time spent was wasted.

But sure, what country are you from? Iran? Saudi Arabia? What beacon of Islam are you from that you know so much about it? That you've seen the 'true face' of Islam?

 

So  ------ NO -----   no matter how many Suras or Hadiths you pull and how many claims to MY ignorance you care to make - had you ever been educated in that faith or lived it from the inside to know what the HELL you are talking about.  Instead you fine comb passages to justify your hate reasoning. As is there are just as many insane verses in the old and new testaments about such nonesense.

I'm sorry that you find the Islamic scripture to be flawed. Not my fault. However, the scripture is the basis of Islam, regardless of what you wish to believe about your conjecture-based experience of a group of people.

 

You are deliberately skirting the issue: you hate.  Period.  Meanwhile, continue to insist that all muslims must be women hating, gay-killing etc.  I am sure you will have a happy life with them in the UK.

No, I outright stated I hate Islam in the very first post you quoted in this chain. And it's precisely because of what it contains.

But you seem deliberately unable to grasp the concept. The scripture makes claims about the treatment of women and gays. That's 'holy' to Muslims. The scripture (and even historical accounts) make claims about the sort of person Muhammad was. He is 'perfect' to Muslims. If a person chooses to associate themselves with such things, they can go for it. It can take all the mental gymnastics they like, but the basis of Islam contains these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38:44 doesn't translate to branch, it translates to bunch or bundle of grass.

According to traditional interpretations 38:44 was a symbolic strike by Job/Ayyub (upon his wife) with blades of grass, meaning a light/negligible strike was used.

One of the biggest issues with the Islamic faith is interpretation, a lot of it is very open to interpretation, yes that portion does condone the punishment of women, but when interpreted one way it comes out as "beating" but when read another way it means light punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you do your own research.  Were you raised in this faith? NO.  Were you educated in it? NO.

 

And while I never claimed to be an authority as you are, I am saying flat out it is not TOUGHT that way, which I do know from personal experience over many years.  You are forgetting that in my own country hatred for Jews and Muslims makes your little rants seem like G rated drivel.  In my own county there are plenty of people who even when I was a child let alone now, would be only too happy to see every SINGLE arab wiped off the face of the earth.  I chose to educate myself on Islam specifically to try and understand why such hatred infused the history of my culture.  It look me a long time and many years to see that nearly all bias was based in nothing but fears of times long gone, and on acts committed by people who are crimminals and crimminal minded, not because their religion told them to be any more than Jewish scripture or Christian verse did to their bretheren.

 

So  ------ NO -----   no matter how many Suras or Hadiths you pull and how many claims to MY ignorance you care to make - had you ever been educated in that faith or lived it from the inside to know what the HELL you are talking about.  Instead you fine comb passages to justify your hate reasoning. As is there are just as many insane verses in the old and new testaments about such nonesense.

 

You are deliberately skirting the issue: you hate.  Period.  Meanwhile, continue to insist that all muslims must be women hating, gay-killing etc.  I am sure you will have a happy life with them in the UK.

I have to side with Doro on this, although I am trying to be fair as all 3 of the main religions have their highs and lows in my opinion.

Based on the UK. based on the FACT that about 1/4 of mosques wont' even let women on the premises, based on the fact that those that do, they are kept separate from the men etc, the simple fact is, the impression the muslim faith gives to the average person ont he street is that they do treat women as second class citizens (as has Christianity in the past etc, but we are talking about today)

There is article after article about the treatment of women in the Islam faith today.

here's a few

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,185647,00.html

Or in the UK

http://www.mwnuk.co.uk/Muslim_Women_RISING_against_VIOLENCE_Mosque_Postcard_Campaign__17_cd.php

To quote that site which is a site run BY Muslim women in the UK

 

Violence against women and girls is the most widespread form of abuse in the world.

In Britain, violence is vastly under reported in Muslim communities and many women and girls continue to suffer in silence.

The levels of violence are indicative of the lack of respect for women and girls. Changing attitudes is therefore the first step to reducing violence – men need to be educated that violence is unacceptable and never justifiable and women must be encouraged to not continue accepting violence.

There isn't an "Islamic empire".

I've used the wrong term again :)

Whether it's actually called an empire or not, the fact is, that in the past, Islam had invaded and taken over a far greater amount of countries etc than the British did at the height of their empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38:44 doesn't translate to branch, it translates to bunch or bundle of grass.

According to traditional interpretations 38:44 was a symbolic strike by Job/Ayyub (upon his wife) with blades of grass, meaning a light/negligible strike was used.

One of the biggest issues with the Islamic faith is interpretation, a lot of it is very open to interpretation, yes that portion does condone the punishment of women, but when interpreted one way it comes out as "beating" but when read another way it means light punishment.

A playful spanking? See, Allah was just helping Job get the spark back in his marriage!

All joking aside, regardless of what level of punishment, it's still a punishment. As far as I remember, the punishment was for Job's wife asking Job to tell God to remove the curse from them (God betting the devil that Job would still worship him even if shit went wrong). Job goes full retard and says he's going to beat her 100 times for even asking. In the end, God says you have to fulfil your oath, but to not hit her too hard. As if hitting women is fine normally, but on this occasion just be a bit softer.

God didn't say 'Job, what the fuck? She's suffering and she just wants out of my sadism and you want to kick her ass for it? 100 times, too?! Even for me, that's a bit much. Apologise with some flowers and chocolates, broheim.' No, he went 'Well you know, bitches be cray and need to learn their place. Just don't hit her too hard. No hoe is gonna make the green with a black eye.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...