Je Suis Charlie • Hacker News Board

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#281

Post by _almosnow » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 4:44 AM UTC

pouetpouet wrote: post #273

_almosnow wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because I think you are blaming the victims. Didn't you read the disclaimer? >Religious nutjobs deserve every bit of mockery and disrespect. What? You are out of your mind dude.

No. I am very serious. Religious fundamentalists should be mocked and ridiculed. I find it very offensive that you would suggest otherwise. See? Different things can be really offensive to different people. Religious people don't have the monopoly on being offended nor on truth. If I turn the TV on, I will hear many offensive things. But first, I get over it. And second I don't claim that it should be illegal to expr…

>Religious fundamentalists should be mocked and ridiculed.

You are saying that a group of people with different beliefs than yours should be (_SHOULD_, as in, "we as a society have to") mocked and ridiculed?

You are a sick person, dude; not much different than the guys that made the news.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#282

Post by waps » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 6:01 AM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #241

waps wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the terrorists are right about islam. So what do you think about your prophet doing the same ? Are you also ashamed of that ? He had the mother of 5 children murdered for opposing him. As you (should) know, this is far from the only instance of such action by "the prophet". I am sorry but unless you wholeheartedly condemn this kind of killing, whoever did it, your gesture means little. If you don'…

He only had one killed? What a modest man, by biblical standards. For comparison: > He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. (…

> He only had one killed? What a modest man, by biblical standards.

No this is just one example. Estimates of how many people got killed and/or massacred by the prophet to bring us islam range from 10 000 to 100 000.

Individual people murdered by the prophet or his assassins (on his direct orders, excluding massacres of entire villages/groups/caravans/muslims), according to muslim's own history, is about 1220 people (most were "convicted" by him, the victims not even knowing there was a trial. That's how islam works : muslims would go to the prophet, explain the situation, the prophet would convict someone to death and send a squad of muslims to go kill the man/woman).

Example:

  A girl wearing ornaments, went out at Medina. Somebody struck her with a stone.   
  She was brought to the Prophet while she was still alive. Allah's Apostle asked 
  her, "Did such-and-such a person strike you?" She raised her head, denying 
  that. He asked her a second time, saying, "Did so-and-so strike you?" She 
  raised her head, denying that. He said for the third time, "Did so-and-so 
  strike you?" She lowered her head, agreeing. Allah's Apostle then sent for the 
  killer and killed him between two stones.

(Sahih Bukhari, Book 83, Number 16)

Islam/muslims (the Mughals to be exact) also hold the title of biggest massacre in history. The Mughal invasion of India was a massacre that lasted almost 1300 years and estimates of the death toll range from 60 million to 300 million people. Before the massacre India bordered Russia. Ironically a region of Afghanistan is still called "Hindu Kush" or massacre of Hindus.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#283

Post by waps » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 6:11 AM UTC

ZigmundFreud wrote: post #251

waps wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the terrorists are right about islam. So what do you think about your prophet doing the same ? Are you also ashamed of that ? He had the mother of 5 children murdered for opposing him. As you (should) know, this is far from the only instance of such action by "the prophet". I am sorry but unless you wholeheartedly condemn this kind of killing, whoever did it, your gesture means little. If you don'…

And yet Christians have it so right... "Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' And He said, 'Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.'"(Gen. 22:1-2). Remember that religious texts are mostly proverbs. These e…

1) does that excuse muhammad's massacres in any way ? Or should I answer with pointing out that atheists are responsible for the biggest massacres of the 20th century perhaps (ie. the communist "opium for the people" folks)

2) you're mostly showing ignorance, as "mostly proverbs" does not apply at all to islamic texts. Random example :

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0...

Different religions are different (surprising how controversial such an obvious truth can be).

3) Given that you're comparing moral parables ("lies to convey a greater truth" I've heard it defined, like fairy tales) to actual events, your point is reversed.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#284

Post by azth » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 6:55 AM UTC

waps wrote: post #280

azth wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you keep pasting that Wikipedia link. It even says that this story is false and fabricated.

I must have missed that part of it. It contains some apologia, but it also contains links to the primary sources. Look up what those sources are. Furthermore, this is a standard part of islamic law (killing for criticism). Do you dispute that as well ? Plus muhammad had over a dozen poets executed, as well as entire camps of people suspected merely of leaving his army. Are you going to call all of it false ? Famously…

> but it also contains links to the primary sources. Look up what those sources are.

I have looked up more sources in Arabic (not mentioned on the Wikipedia page). There is practically a universal consensus among scholars that the narrations of this incident are fabricated, based on analyzing the chain of narration (all contain known liars and fabricators).

> Furthermore, this is a standard part of islamic law (killing for criticism). Do you dispute that as well ?

Yes. The religion is open to criticism. Show me where it says otherwise.

> Plus muhammad had over a dozen poets executed, as well as entire camps of people suspected merely of leaving his army... Famously he had a tribe massacred...

Citation needed. Again, it's not about being "famous" or not, it's about whether a certain narration conforms to the very rigorous standards that have been set in examining such accounts, not to mention other approaches to determine authenticity. Otherwise, anybody can say anything (e.g. all four Bibles have anonymous authors). Each particular incident must be examined to see what exactly happened, instead of throwing blanket statements like this.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#285

Post by zukhan » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 8:33 AM UTC

aragot wrote: post #105

jknz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are going in the streets to support the newspaper in France and other European cities, a map is available here: http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/carte-interactive-tous... A noticeable fact is how mainstream newspapers in France are careful not to make the amalgam between these few barbarians and a whole religion.

> how mainstream newspapers in France are careful not to make the amalgam between these few barbarians and a whole religion Although it would be nice, from a PR standpoint, if some French Muslim organizations could condemn those events, becuase I don't know what most Muslims think about Charlie Hebdo. Have they? I have searched Google News for that and didn't find links, so please post if there are some. Or they may…

Yes, they have. You don't find it in Google News since Muslims condemning these acts isn't "news" and doesn't usually get covered by the media.

Muslim leaders and organizations around the world condemning the attack: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/46-examples-of-muslim-out...

Some of the greatest Muslim scholars (who the masses follow) had to say about it: http://www.onislam.net/english/shariah/special-coverage/4816...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/muslims-respond-cha...

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/7/leading_muslim_scholar_...

I can go on and on but I think you get the picture. Practicing orthodox Muslims (notice I didn't say "moderate Muslims") are NOT quiet on this.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#286

Post by pouetpouet » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 8:38 AM UTC

_almosnow wrote: post #281

pouetpouet wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I am very serious. Religious fundamentalists should be mocked and ridiculed. I find it very offensive that you would suggest otherwise. See? Different things can be really offensive to different people. Religious people don't have the monopoly on being offended nor on truth. If I turn the TV on, I will hear many offensive things. But first, I get over it. And second I don't claim that it should be illegal to expr…

>Religious fundamentalists should be mocked and ridiculed. You are saying that a group of people with different beliefs than yours should be (_SHOULD_, as in, "we as a society have to") mocked and ridiculed? You are a sick person, dude; not much different than the guys that made the news.

You are interpreting. That's on you. An enlightened society should aim to peacefully put aside religious fundamentalism. That's obviously a personal opinion as everyone can have a different idea of what's enlightened. People have a liberty of conscience and I respect that, if some people embrace fundamentalism, it saddens me but it's within their rights, as it's my right to find it ridiculous. I don't go and shoot them, I don't condone violence and I don't want them banned in the limits of hate speech. If some cartoonists decide to draw to mock and ridicule, good for them, they have every right to do so. I was not a reader of Charlie Hebdo. You find some of their drawing distastful too? So what?

You don't have a right not to be offended, not to be exposed to distasteful content. People that want satire banned sure can't call themselves moderates.

> You are a sick person, dude; not much different than the guys that made the news.

Now you are being unreasonnable. It's so despicable that you can draw that parallel. You are way out of line. When you suggests that maybe these cartoons shouldn't be legal. YOU are the one siding with terrorists.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#287

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 3:58 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #269

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference with Islam is that the Koran advocates for violent persecution of non-muslims and that is something that the founder, Mohammed, took a great part in including murdering people [in battle and after when they refused to convert] and taking their wives as his possessions. It seems to me that if you choose to identify as a follower of Mohammed you can't uphold him as a paragon and oppose violence, those po…

> It seems to me that if you choose to identify as a follower of Mohammed you can't uphold him as a paragon and oppose violence, those positions are contrary. Well, being contradictory is nothing that ever stopped people (religious or not). For example Jesus was all about piece, yet horrible attrocities have been done in his name by people saying their were for Jesus ideals (e.g. the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide…

You can use the New Testament and Jesus own words/actions to criticise the [Spanish] Inquisition whilst you can't do the same with non-abrogated ayahs or by demonstrating the contrast with Mohammed's model of life.

There's documentary evidence, via Wikipedia, to support 1250 being sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition over a 200 year period. The monarchy in Spain established that Inquisition: the people were tried for things like witchcraft but also child rape, bestiality and such which are still consider serious crimes today - though seldom is capital punishment legally applied for those crimes now. Interestingly none of the motives mentioned in the Wiki' article is "spreading Christianity": indeed IIRC the Inquisitions apply to those "baptised" in to the Catholic church [albeit baptisms were often under duress of being expelled from Spain it seems].

Whatever atrocities can be pegged on Christians I don't see how that stops the Koran and Mohammed from being supporters of violent persecution however.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#288

Post by waps » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 4:14 PM UTC

azth wrote: post #284

waps wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must have missed that part of it. It contains some apologia, but it also contains links to the primary sources. Look up what those sources are. Furthermore, this is a standard part of islamic law (killing for criticism). Do you dispute that as well ? Plus muhammad had over a dozen poets executed, as well as entire camps of people suspected merely of leaving his army. Are you going to call all of it false ? Famously…

> but it also contains links to the primary sources. Look up what those sources are. I have looked up more sources in Arabic (not mentioned on the Wikipedia page). There is practically a universal consensus among scholars that the narrations of this incident are fabricated, based on analyzing the chain of narration (all contain known liars and fabricators). > Furthermore, this is a standard part of islamic law (killi…

> Yes. The religion is open to criticism. Show me where it says otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy

I find it hard to believe you're somehow not aware of this. Are you serious.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#289

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 4:18 PM UTC

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #213

mercer wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least here in Holland, many muslims form communities, often centered around cultural and religious centers. These communities tend to have leaders and/or spokespeople. These people can speak on behalf of the community. They are not (necessarily) self-appointed. In my experience, here, the moderate muslims are often rather quiet, perhaps out of fear. In general, they do not support extremism and fear non-muslim ext…

> In my experience, here, the moderate muslims are often rather quiet, perhaps out of fear. In general, they do not support extremism and fear non-muslim extremist retaliation. They are in a really bad spot, and I sympathize with their situation. They're no more quiet than when say a white Christian lunatic (Breivik) shot 77 people to death and injured over 300. The vast majority of them will denounce both acts, but…

From Wikipedia on Anders Behring Breivik:

>The manifesto states its author is "100 percent Christian",[4] but he is not "excessively religious"[4] and considers himself a "cultural Christian" and a "modern-day crusader".[3][4] His manifesto states "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie", calls religion a crutch and a source for drawing mental strength, and says "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment." Regarding the term cultural Christian, which he says means preserving European culture, he notes, "It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy...)"[3][182] Furthermore, Breivik stated that "myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God."[3][192] Nevertheless, he stated that he planned to pray to God seeking for his help during his attacks.[193] //

I described myself as a "cultural christian" as a teenager, I was agnostic and acted atheistically (ie not a Christian). He surely means he wants to maintain 'Western' culture rather than allow Islamisation. That's not "Christian", if he were a Christian terrorist the aim of the terror would be to convert people to Christianity or punish them for not being/opposing Christians. He was, according to this, not bothered by any non-Christians as long as they didn't seek to change Western culture.

If Breivik had cried "for Jesus" or said he was "killing those who offended God by opposing Christianity" then the Pope, Archbishops, and other leaders of formalised Christian congregations would have been giving statements against it at the drop of a hat.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#290

Post by dang » Fri, Jan 09, 2015, 6:30 PM UTC

waps wrote: post #288

azth wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it also contains links to the primary sources. Look up what those sources are. I have looked up more sources in Arabic (not mentioned on the Wikipedia page). There is practically a universal consensus among scholars that the narrations of this incident are fabricated, based on analyzing the chain of narration (all contain known liars and fabricators). > Furthermore, this is a standard part of islamic law (killi…

> Yes. The religion is open to criticism. Show me where it says otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy I find it hard to believe you're somehow not aware of this. Are you serious.

Religious flamewars are not ok on Hacker News. We've already asked you to stop. Please stop now.