Hopefully an agreed upon common sense will ultimately prevail. Hopefully the path there won’t contain any more horrors like this.Of course freedom of speech and expression should be protected and encouraged, I wasn't linking that in any way to the atrocity. Rather I was making a separate point about how that right isn't being implemented fairly in that society, which is fair because I'm only holding that society to its' own standards.
Right back at cha mate.
Teacher beheaded near Paris after showing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad
- Thread starter SinNombre
- Start date
While I agree that the Burqa ban is hypocritical( I am against the ban) I just see this as an extention of what started with an fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Ayan Al Hirsi Ali and what got Theo Van Gogh killed. There has also been attempted terror attacks against Jyllandposten and attempted terror attacks against the Danish cartoon drawers far before there was a danish Burqa ban in 2018. Frankly there is nothing to suggest it makes any difference. We had a terrorattack in 2015 also where the targets were related to the muhammedcartoons and again this was before any Burqa ban.
Last edited:
Allowing women the freedom to enjoy being outside, on the beach, is a reason not to ban burkinis. Not allowing women outside unless they dress up, is worse
I agree my problem with burkas is mainly if women who dont wear them are punished or harressed by their family and community however if they want to wear them out of their own free will i think they should be allowed too. I find the whole thing incredibly medieval though.
Agree. Medieval is the correct word. Can't belive this is controversial in 2020
Well yeah, extremists will be extremists; they're usually not inclined to rationality.
To posters familiar with France:
Did the online campaign against the teacher mark a new quality in Islamist mobilization, or is there precedent? And is there something new to the responses from authorities and the public?
Basically: Is this treated as another awful episode in France's recent history of Islamist murders, or has there been a unique kind of shock and reaction?
Did the online campaign against the teacher mark a new quality in Islamist mobilization, or is there precedent? And is there something new to the responses from authorities and the public?
Basically: Is this treated as another awful episode in France's recent history of Islamist murders, or has there been a unique kind of shock and reaction?
a) people were more afraid of commiting such crimes AND/OR
b) there were such crimes, but no mass / social media like today AND/OR
c) a more successful integration of minorities into the society might result in more harsh protests / crimes as a result of actual or perceived discrimination (of the minority by the majority) - might be related to the "integration paradox"
Absolutely agree with this. Everyone associated with this crime as a (moral) supporter or instigator should be punished with the severest penalty the law can offer (I am glad that the assailant himself is dead so he won't be able to bath in the glory of perceiving himself as a martyr.)
Yes, it isn't - and will never be. That's life. You can approach many crimes on a theoretical level and discuss hidden causes and structural defencies. But, they never explain everything. At the end of the day, there was one guy who commited this crime voluntarily. No amount of structural inequalities forced his hand.
Last edited:
then don’t expect harmony in society. That’s life.
Two pupils apparently took money to condemn a teacher to death. Classy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-two-pupils-among-seven-facing-terror-charges
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-two-pupils-among-seven-facing-terror-charges
I suppose an analogy might be holding all Manchester United fans responsible for the actions of a small hooligan element amongst it
I think we should work towards a zero tolerance policy towards islamism(Islamic fundamentalism) in our western democracies. They are clearly not compatible. 251 people have now been killed and many more injured over some cartoons of Muhammed. It's ridiculous beyond belief. If people want to live by Sharia I think they should kindly migrate to Saudi Arabia or Iran and if someone want them enforced in Europe they should kindly stay out.
Somehow the psychosis of fundamentalism needs to be removed from civil society.
absolutely deranged
That's simply not true. The demographics have drastically changed since 60 or 70 years ago. Have a look at the population of muslims in Europe now compared to 60 or 70 years ago(starts on page 4 on the link). Apart from the increase of demographics its of course interesting what has caused an escalation of Islamism(muslims who want Sharia). Clearly the post 9/11 events ramped up everything as well.
http://www.ijesd.org/papers/29-D438.pdf
Two Algerian women stabbed in Paris
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ck-Two-Muslim-woman-stabbed-Eiffel-Tower.html
https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/21/two-...by-white-women-shouting-dirty-arabs-13455196/
Incidentally why don't we ever in the same token see an emphasis on the demographics that perpetuate racism, white supremacy, conspiracy theorism and far right terrorism which the Center for Strategic and International Studies in the US says majority of domestic terrorism stems from. And it has implications for politics/culture as well.
Why is it only Muslims that as a community have to bear the burden of somehow preventing maniacs from becoming murderers or terrorists but I almost never see this type of requirement extended to lets say white people in relation to preventing or attenuating white supremacy radicalisation? I've asked this question plenty of time in threads like this and never got an adequate answer.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ck-Two-Muslim-woman-stabbed-Eiffel-Tower.html
https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/21/two-...by-white-women-shouting-dirty-arabs-13455196/
Incidentally why don't we ever in the same token see an emphasis on the demographics that perpetuate racism, white supremacy, conspiracy theorism and far right terrorism which the Center for Strategic and International Studies in the US says majority of domestic terrorism stems from. And it has implications for politics/culture as well.
Why is it only Muslims that as a community have to bear the burden of somehow preventing maniacs from becoming murderers or terrorists but I almost never see this type of requirement extended to lets say white people in relation to preventing or attenuating white supremacy radicalisation? I've asked this question plenty of time in threads like this and never got an adequate answer.
Though I agree fundamentalism has no place in any society, I do find the 'compatibility' part a little ironic. Considering that the modern strand of it was born out of Arab nationalism which European powers weaponised to destroy the Ottoman empire, after which they then continued to support the fundamentalism logistically by importing scholars, books and Imams from a particular region - while cutting all the alternatives off - because of the 'special relationship' with particular peoples. Then you look at the Middle East through post-colonial lenses; the wars, the bombs, the destabilisation and humanitarian crisis'.
You're right, the world we live in is ridiculous beyond belief.
White guests are never forced to say that they condemn the latest far right terrorist atrocity either before they can comment further. It's seen as a given.
I think it’s important to note that Muslims have been/are targets of these vigilantes as well. Some cases from the 90s in the Middle East spring to mind. There was a professor in Egypt, Farag Foda, who was assassinated in 1992 after being condemned by al-Azhar for blasphemy. A couple years later the Nobel-prize winning writer Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck in Cairo due to Islamist objections to one of his books. Also, although he was Druze not Muslim, there was the case of Suliman Bashear,* a professor from Nablus whose students threw him out a window for his views on early Islamic history. There are doubtless many other such cases reaching much further back.
So it may be best not to view this strictly as an aspect of some “Islam vs the West” confrontation, but as much a struggle within Islamic societies themselves over questions of modernity and the legitimate use of violence.
*(edit): apologies, according to his Wikipedia his wife denies this happened.
(edit): according to this he was condemned to death by some preachers and forced to resign from his position.
Last edited:
Well yes I agree to some significant extent the west has helped create this problem beyond the colonial period that you mentioned fx, the US armed the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden to help them fight the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the US and most countries in the world(that are not shia) have had a cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia(one of the greatest funders of Islamic fundamentalism) because we are reliant on their oil. The 2nd Iraq war also destabilzed the region and despite Saddam being one of the most brutal dictators of his time, it was a massive own goal to go into Iraq.
Well yes I agree, that's why I try to make an distinction between muslims(by which I mean muslim moderates and reformers) and islamists.
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, no matter where it is or what religion it is. White supremacy in the states has a strong under current of radical christianity; hell, it is a christian entity in the states. Religious fundamentalism is abhorrent on all sides. As a white person, it’s embarrassing to be associated with that. But you can’t divorce the fact that this is virtually all religious based. It’s difficult as a white person who is not encumbered by religion to begin to make that any progress on reeling in the christian fundies & their knock effects of racism, supremacy, etc. We just don’t have the numbers, especially in the states.
A more fair comparison & discussion would be a muslim v. a white christian, not a muslim v. a white person. The white christian comparison may not work neatly in other countries, but it pretty much does so in the states.
OK but I’m not sure the way you’ve framed this - basically “good vs bad” Muslims - or some of the language you employ, is particularly helpful in producing the desired outcome. For example:
“If people want to live by Sharia I think they should kindly migrate to Saudi Arabia or Iran”
I don’t think this fully grasps the range of Muslim experiences and approaches to living “by Sharia” and how most Muslims in the West have managed to reconcile their understanding of the demands of the Sharia with their lives in the West rather successfully. And I think approaching the topic so bluntly risks alienating those Muslims who are actually on the frontline in this battle.
Muslim reverence for the Sharia, however it’s understood, is not going away anytime soon, if ever. To a considerable degree it’s fundamental to their faith and for many their identity. Neatly dividing Muslims between good (“moderates and reformers”, whoever they may be?) and bad (those who want to “live by Sharia” and can get fecked basically) essentially condemns a considerable number of potential allies in the fight against the radicals.
The burkas, the sexual ability of a woman, not to drink alcohol, the need for a type of meat that's cut and drained in a certain way & not to eat if it isnt that, to eat nearly all animals except pork, to have multiple temples & butchers arguably available close to all societies, that people have to wear certain types of clothes (even men), the control of a community by telling strictly what to do and not to do or the feeling that they go against god (ie no pictures of a prophet), the strict times, quantity and quality of the way actions & prayers have to be undertaken, I could go on but there is a real element of Control in a society. Some people I'm close to feel that pressure & dont take that control and order so seriously and end up feeling a bit more relaxed individuals whilst I can see why some love that element of control dictated on their life & find that it really helps them figure out what to do and not to do in life. That can lead to some (not all) individuals possibly with increased attachment and an element of the need for protection/action that's required when things dont go their way & things seem to be going the opposite way to the way thats told by controllers.
Last edited:
I’m disappointed in you about the recent stabbings of the two Muslim women stabbed at the Eiffel Tower. it keeps happening. They dont do it well enough. They should be stopping this leaders or wherever or whoever teach this stuff. How would you feel of your son or daughter blew up a train to make a statement? I wouldnt be hanging with friends or raisong my family that way but for some reason this keeps happening.
If there is all this social media for some to shout out for every mistake people make on then there is also enough pressure to put on your own community and the way it's being run.
I go out with someone like you, have friends like you, so I'm not just random guy who blames everyone & thinks everyone is like this in such a community - but are you doing the best you can?
You have the ability to stop this before anyone else and it keeps leaking out like unnecessary blood they cause.
You are at fault. Those stabbings, and countless others like them are on you. You should feel ashamed and fully responsible for those acts committed.
Just the comparison between the stabbings and the Paty incident is laughable. You may think about that again?White supremacy is an ideology.
Most white people aren't white race supremists though, not in any meaningfull sense of the word.
explain to me why
Yes. That is fundamental to the point he was making.
That's what he meant. You may want to read his original post again.
I agree, I don't go down the all muslims are terrorists path or that all muslims need to denounce islamic terrorism every single time it happens.
Hmm, you can think about it yourself.
Some of my best girlfriends are muslim
The stabbings of the arabic women was very wrong but ultimately a result of the Muslim people killing a man due to their drawings, wasnt it?
It was a result of that action that split the community in half rather than being a whole community where peace and love is shown and played out.
Just as a part of the Muslim community can kill a random teacher because they dont follow the Muslim laws perfectly- that only leads to selfish thinking and splitting of the community where the opposite end dont follow their community laws either and end up killing random muslims.
You just replicated the most popular excuse apologists of Islamist terrorism use to give, only from the "other side".
(Besides it's inaccurate - the articles say an argument about leashing dogs escalated into racist abuse and the stabbing attack.)
I mean it’s a free forum but next time instead of emojis maybe we’d get somewhere if you explained your viewpoint.
Serves those Muslim women right or something.
That's the whole point. A small sector of Muslims will blame the fact that the other side did things against the views of their religion as a reason to kill a teacher and that causes tensions within a multi racial community. It becomes a war inbetween a community. Look at this news article -
"Two Muslim women were 'stabbed repeatedly' under the Eiffel Tower amid rising tensions in Paris after the beheading of a teacher last week.
French police have arrested two female suspects after an argument about dogs allegedly descended into violence and racist insults including the words 'Dirty Arabs'."
The rising tension happened because of the splitting of a community that happened due to one community thinking 'a drawing of their prophets shouldn't happen and now is suitable for murder'.
Who ever dies, whatever their names, personality or religion is - the fact they died is awful.
If this random woman had killed two random women just about their dogs then that's one thing hardly related to a religion or a colour of a person's skin.
But we see rising tensions between 2 communities happen after the blowing up of an arianda grande concert, the blowing up of underground trains, the blowing up of buildings and planes like 9/11, the killing of a teacher. Why? Because the religion and racial views are bought in as a reason for some people in a community to act in a certain violent way. Then what happens is the other community may retaliate with their own religious or racial views aswell.
If someone from a non atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, catholic, Jewish religion kill a random person in a multiracial community over something random that happens regularly like the thieving of money or even sexual abuse - does the persons religion ever get highlighted as a cause? Not really for me, the killer didnt bring a religious or racial view as a cause of their actions. Then compare that to people who kill someone for a drawing of their religion or shout their gods name before blowing up a population in a concert or underground train - it leads to tension directly against that religion and race because they themselves bought it up.