Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad • Hacker News Board

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#361

Post by rikacomet » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 3:36 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #185

rikacomet wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did I not condemn the attack, and clearly said that at max they should have been ignored, it was after all only satire.

> did I not condemn the attack, and clearly said that at max they should have been ignored, it was after all only satire. Yes, and if you had left it at that your stance would be commendable. But you chose to significantly dilute your position in what followed.

Dear Jacques, your opinion is not the only one that matters, I hope you remember that. No opinion got diluted, nor yours or mine or whatever you meant by that.

I will say this clearly to you, Muslim people have faith in Prophet Muhammad and his teachings. What are they? You neither have complete knowledge nor intention to get it.

It in-fact, includes the same liberties and rights you seem to be are defending at the moment. Yet from the intensity with which you are responding to my replies to other people as well, makes you look like rather driven by emotions here.

If you could only find out for yourself, and spend the proper effort in finding out what Islam really is (from a genuine Quran) you will realize that what you are simply brushing off as another religion is not what you think it is.

Is it possible for you to be wrong about Islam? Yes or No?

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#362

Post by rikacomet » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 3:39 PM UTC

wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #354

rikacomet wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Islam starts at Tauheed, which is to believe in "One God". As a Muslim I have only 2 things to say to you: Do you condemn the attacks? I do. Do you condemn over-the-top caricatures of our Prophet? I do.

>Do you condemn over-the-top caricatures of our Prophet? I do. I don't. I like the ones of Jesus a little more though.

Then we simply have different opinions. Nothing more.

What I meant in my original post is that, out of the millions of ways to be amused, if you can simply write off "insulting prophets of Islam", I your Muslim friend would be very happy.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#363

Post by kaybe » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 3:39 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #192

rikacomet wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To offend him is to offend me. The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family.

> To offend him is to offend me. You can't really offend that which does not currently exist. I can't offend Genghis Khan any more than I can offend the prophet or Jesus. > The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family. No, that's not the same way.

>> The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family. >No, that's not the same way.

Maybe for those offended it might be? It can explain a lot of the anger.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#364

Post by theorique » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 3:40 PM UTC

jordanpg wrote: post #117

neals wrote: post #7

I used to think society would, at some point, grow up and leave religion behind. But lately, it just feels like a far 'lower' form of religion is just taking over. I think that western christianity has made some big strides. For example, by leaving all the violence behind. Now the violent ones are winning. This makes me sad for the future of Europe.

Coverage of these events, with or without anti-Muslim sentiment, almost never takes the point of view that it is the fact that people are brought up to really believe that there are invisible, magic beings in the ether who care about the state of affairs on earth that is at least in part the root cause here. And that is a terrible shame because not drawing attention to that fact is a tacit endorsement of extremist be…

You can't have it both ways. You either believe there are invisible, magic beings or you don't.

Well, yes and no. A lot of people (most?) kinda-sorta believe, but have doubts about the weirdness of some of the more unlikely and/or extreme beliefs. The vast people don't have enough faith to strap on a suicide vest or behead someone, even in Islam.

For most "believers", religion is a consolation when you think about Grandma in heaven or a way to be socially connected to your community.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#365

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 3:40 PM UTC

Killah911 wrote: post #347

jacquesm wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to that question is simple: Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not. So they're effectively to be compared with pre-enlightenment Christianity and then the differences are much smaller. The world does not move in lockstep. Sooner or later Islam will also experience its enlightenment (hopefully sooner) and then we will see the end of this nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enligh…

Seriously jacquesm? I'm truly shocked at this coming from you. I have a lot of respect you & love reading your stuff, but really? "Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not"? Surely you're not so ignorant as to dismiss the thousand years where the Islamic world was the abode of knowledge, science and civilization while Europe was in the dark ages. Yes, shit sucks for them now. But to say they never exp…

'Killah911' ? Right...

As for what the enlightenment was all about, maybe you should read up on that first before starting a rant like this:

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

So no, Islam did not experience enlightenment. The closest they came to that was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk and his attempt to reduce the influence of religion on politics but it mostly failed outside of Turkey and recent events there should make you worried about whether or not his legacy will last.

The fact that there are anecdotes about atheists in the 1100's does nothing to contradict what I said.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#366

Post by geographomics » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 3:41 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #357

geographomics wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a 'fail'. Being repulsed by Charlie Hebdo's offensive depictions of religious icons does not imply being in favour of the assassination of its editorial staff. You can stand squarely against both, without contradiction.

I didn't quote someone saying he was repulsed; I quoted someone saying it wasn't free speech. The two are very different statements. And I didn't say he's in favor of the assassination, either - just that he failed to distance himself from them.

Why should he have to distance himself? That notion in itself implies that his default position is showing some favour.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#367

Post by mknits » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 3:41 PM UTC

My one and only question: How can a religion be based mostly on one book? Surely the book isn't wikipedia or google.

This question applies to Christians, Muslims and Jews.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#368

Post by tomp » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 3:41 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #335

tomp wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. It's the other way around; I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof). Discussion of things that probably don't exist (e.g. time travel) or that we don't know whether they exist or not…

> I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof) The point you're missing is that your basis for proof is flawed. Given that you substantively know so little (if anything) more in the relative sense, you are in no more of a position to require proof than are those with whom you disagree. The other, and perhaps bigger, point is why the need for ridicule in the first plac…

> The other, and perhaps bigger, point is why the need for ridicule in the first place?

> Perhaps you would be inclined to understand, teach, etc.

What approach do you suggest? Imagine, for a case, that you meet someone that claims to believe in unicorns. Most people would say that person is insane, and there is no point in "teaching" him/her otherwise; if one is so oblivious to the reality as to believe in the existence of unicorns, you probably won't be able to convince him/her otherwise using "conventional" means (words). I simply apply the same reasoning to people who believe in a god. (For the matter of case, I would also apply the same reasoning to someone who blindly believed in e.g. evolution or that the Earth is round - although my default assumption, when I come across such people, is that they have reasons for their beliefs, and could at least outline the method of the proof, and discuss its limits).

> I suppose it's good that I can "prove" that to you with a dictionary, else be subjected to your ridicule.

Thanks for clarifying that. Still, I think I have a point when I say that my approach is "considerably" different than that of Charlie Hebdo attackers.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#369

Post by maskedinvader » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 3:42 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #192

rikacomet wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To offend him is to offend me. The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family.

> To offend him is to offend me. You can't really offend that which does not currently exist. I can't offend Genghis Khan any more than I can offend the prophet or Jesus. > The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family. No, that's not the same way.

Why was this down voted ?

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#370

Post by dragontamer » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 3:42 PM UTC

enupten wrote: post #340

PublicEnemy111 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in Syria before the war(~2006) and there was no patriarch-dominance or extreme unemployment in Aleppo or Damascus. These cities had religious freedom and many Syrians were Catholic. I was fortunate enough to live with locals in both cities for two weeks. The poverty there is not an apples-to-apples comparison to the poverty here in the US or many other parts of the world. There was some dissatisfaction with Al-…

You must've realized by now that American foreign policy (& ergo media biases) is distinctly Saudi-centered. The current debacle with ISIS is likely the result of covert Saudi-CIA funding of "secular" rebels before things went bad (ala Afghanistan): http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isi... That's not to say I like Abbas, of course, but criticism in the US is always the classic manichean "good"…

People need to learn that it's the extremist violent Wahhabism that is the core of these attacks and Al Qaeda. The mainstream Islam / Muslims do not agree with what one sect has to say.

It'd be like calling all Christians terrorists because of what the Irish Catholics / IRA did in the 90s. Wahhabist Islam regularly attack and kill Shia Muslims by the dozens.

Even then, Wahhabism is a growing philosophy amongst Saudi princes, who have remained good allies to the US. Explicit denunciation of this particular philosophy would run counter to US Foreign Policy. Besides, its not like all Wahhabists are violent. Going back to the IRA example, some Catholics were violent in the 90s... but certainly not all of them.