Charlie Hebdo attacks

[mike]

So why is it a big deal ?

There is an age old adage that makes the point that if you fail to learn from history, than it will bite you on the arse in the future.

Nazi germany and Japan in WWII. Both had a supremist pov, one called itself the master race, the other the sons of heaven. Both had expansionist goals and used violence to futher them.

Now lets look at Isil

Abu Muhammad al-‘Adnani, the official spokesman of the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham (ISIS), announced the group’s rebranding as the “Islamic State,” declaring itself a Caliphate and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Caliph Ibrahim.
His announcement came in a 34 minute speech entitled, “This is the Promise of Allah,” and was posted on the Twitter account of the group’s al-I’tisaam Media Foundation. Concurrently, the Islamic State’s al-Hayat Media Center provided English, French, German, and Russian translations. In the speech, ‘Adnani demanded that all jihadi factions, not only those in Iraq and Syria, but everywhere, pledge allegiance to the Islamic State, for the “legality” of their organizations is now void.


Look at the language, its easy to see why this might appeal to Moslems in the west, often unemployed because they are too devout. We had one bus driver here in Sydney who used to pull his bus of passengers over at prayer time, get out with his mat and face mecca. He got the sack. Others wont wear the uniforms the job requires insisting their religious garb is all they can wear. So naturally enough many dont make the short list at job interviews. To these marginalised individuals the following message is very appealing

Praise be to Allah, the Mighty and Strong. And may peace and blessings be upon the one sent with the sword as a mercy to all creation. As for what follows:
Allah (the Exalted) said: {Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has preferred for them and that He will surely substitute for them, after their fear, security, [for] they worship Me, not associating anything with Me. But whoever disbelieves after that – then those are the defiantly disobedient} [An-Nūr:55].

This is an honorable and noble ummah, which does not sleep and ignore grievance. It does not accept degradation.
{So do not weaken and do not grieve, and you will be superior if you are [true] believers} [Āl ‘Imrān:139].
It is a mighty and powerful ummah. How can it not be such, when Allah supports it and grants it victory? {That is because Allah is the protector of those who have believed and because the disbelievers have no protector} [Muhammad: 11].

Our dear ummah – the best of peoples – Allah (the Exalted) decrees numerous victories for this ummah to occur in a single year, which He does not grant others in many years or even centuries. This ummah succeeded in ending two of the largest empires known to history in just 25 years, and then spent the treasures of those empires on jihad in the path of Allah.

So rush O Muslims and gather around your khalīfah, so that you may return as you once were for ages, kings of the earth and knights of war. Come so that you may be honored and esteemed, living as masters with dignity. Know that we fight over a religion that Allah promised to support. We fight for an ummah to which Allah has given honor, esteem, and leadership, promising it with empowerment and strength on the earth. Come O Muslims to your honor, to your victory. By Allah, if you disbelieve in democracy, secularism, nationalism, as well as all the other garbage and ideas from the west, and rush to your religion and creed, then by Allah, you will own the earth, and the east and west will submit to you. This is the promise of Allah to you. This is the promise of Allah to you.
{So do not weaken and do not grieve, and you will be superior if you are believers} [Āl ‘Imrān: 139].
This is the promise of Allah to you.
{If Allah should aid you, no one can overcome you} [Āl ‘Imrān: 160].
This is the promise of Allah to you.
{So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of [the reward of] your deeds} [Muhammad: 35].
This is the promise of Allah to you.
{Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them and that He will surely establish for them [therein] their religion which He has preferred for them} [An-Nūr: 55].
So come to the promise of your Lord.

ISIS Spokesman Declares Caliphate, Rebrands Group as “Islamic State” | Jihadist News

Its the same stuff all over again, expansionist goals, total world domination by the "masters"

They see themselves as the best of people, kings of the earth, knights of war. destined to rule the world with the west submitting to their "masters"

They need to be crushed for the same reason we fought and prevailed over the ideologys of Naziism and Japan in WWII.

Their vision of the future vs our vision of the future....... Pick a side

 

[TrivialSublime]

Ive explained this here

When you lay the two ideologys side by side and walk down the timeline of social and ideological evolution, the simplistic they are both just religions argument falls down.

>>>> Only if you start from a flawed premise that extremist Islam is somehow worse than extremist Christians, Jews , etc.

This journalist makes some very good points

Islam, you have a very serious problem

She makes another good point


Its time to look into Islam, its core ideology its practises, its attitudes to women, to minoritys such as other religions and homosexuals. To examine what it is at a level deeper than just "a religion" and have a frank and perhaps uncomfortable discussion about it

The crusades took place in the 11th century.

>>>> Yes, they did and to not acknowledge they influenced the area for centuries is to not learn from history
Its now the 21st century, but this ideology still thinks killing because some silly book written in the 6th century says so.

>>>>
See my point about 20 & 21st century extremist Christians going after Family Planning clinic Doctors or Christians adulating in the death of service members because of a flawed concept that God hates fags and it brings his condemnation upon a country, as I've said you have scale issues I don't. Extremist religious nut jobs of any faith are indeed bad but they exist in all groups.

Backward thinking , as is throwing up the crusades as some sort of logical argument in this case.

>>>> No, it’s acknowledging what has gone before and pointing out that no religion is innocent

Nor is the death is death simplistic argument valid imo. Yes as the top level that is true.

>>>> death is death

Here in australia this past week we had two real world examples, one a toddler killed by a driver backing down a driveway, another where a drongo being chased by police drive through a yard killing the 17month old girl playing in it.

Two examples, and yes looked at with the minimum resolution dead is dead, but the devil is as always in the detail. Simplistic logic simply cant reconcile these two events as being equal. And the courts will do just that

In one case charges were laid in the other they were not.

Toddler dies after being run over in driveway - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


Man charged with manslaughter over fatal police pursuit in Sydney's west - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


At the simplistic level dead is dead in both cases. To use that argument is to suggest the gunmen who murderd 12 in paris or the gunman responsible for the death of two in Sydney, is no worse a criminal than the person who backed over and killed a child in Brisbane.

>>>> You failed to address the genocide of Aborigines in Australia over the decades, forced sterilization, what say you?

 

[TrivialSublime]

So why is it a big deal ?

There is an age old adage that makes the point that if you fail to learn from history, than it will bite you on the arse in the future.

Nazi germany and Japan in WWII. Both had a supremist pov, one called itself the master race, the other the sons of heaven. Both had expansionist goals and used violence to futher them.

>>>> For a person that likes to advertise their ability to do research and be somewhat a historical scholar you should really research the profit making that was made by German and American corporations during the Second World War , ever take an aspirin, look up Bayer.

 

[manxman]

I think its far far more effective for me do what i do here and in other forums, to take the discussion about Islam beyond the simplistic "Its a religion" level.
To shed light on its ideology to expose the devil that is the detail.

No no, you are as extreme as any of their extremists are in print, the fact you take pride in spreading Islamophobia whilst not mentioning your Zionist ideological hatred of Muslims, is shameful, this is why from you it is hate speech by volume, not education as you claim, its a bit sick Mike, and that's the truth of it.



Heres where Australia is at, best i can tell.
So your views even stand out in your own environment never mind multi-national environment like here.








''Creating division within our community should be vigorously condemned''
''to send a strong message''





.

 

[manxman]

Has anybody mentioned the french muslim policeman that was also murdered on the day, trying to defend the french civvies.

France has laid one of its heroes to rest.

Ahmed Merabet, the 40-year-old Muslim police officer who died trying to stop the Charlie Hebdo terrorists, was buried by his family Tuesday after receiving France’s highest honor

 

[truthseeker]

I don't know, maybe Sharia Law wouldn't be so bad. Think of how much money you'd save on clothes if you force your wife to wear a burqa. Not to mention all those hours spent in front of a mirror.

 

[boomerang]

I'm going to play the role of the ugly American here by pointing out how easily the attackers obtained high powered, military style guns in spite of Europe's notoriously strict regulations regarding firearms.

Belgian Arms Dealer Supplied Paris Gunmen With Weapons: Assault Rifles Used In Charlie Hebdo Attack Purchased In Brussels

 

[Charlie Prime]

All religious fanatics are dangerous and in my opinion bad evil people there murders had nothing to do with false flags or conspiracy and a lot to do with evil and a culture of evil

Religious fanatics can indeed be evil.

The fact that you don't know these Charlie Hebdo attacks were a False Flag which was part of a larger conspiracy demonstrates that you have never studied the matter, and thus speak from a position of severe ignorance.

Ignorance is easy to remedy if you are willing to spend a few hours on it. Most people are not.

 

[Richard Hawkins]

Religious fanatics can indeed be evil.

The fact that you don't know these Charlie Hebdo attacks were a False Flag which was part of a larger conspiracy demonstrates that you have never studied the matter, and thus speak from a position of severe ignorance.

Ignorance is easy to remedy if you are willing to spend a few hours on it. Most people are not.

Oh i know all about false flag theories I find most people who propagate them suffer from a medical condition called paranoia

 

[manxman]

Oh i know all about false flag theories I find most people who propagate them suffer from a medical condition called paranoia

Then you will know all about the false flag sarin attack that killed 500+ women and children that your president rubber stamped.

Their murders were to facilitate American boots on the ground in Syria, without UN sanction, but worldwide approval.
If it wasnt for the Porton Down whistle-blower Obarma would have invaded, and the C.I.A. sarin would have become the centre of conspiracy theory, or as you describe paranoia.

And bytheway those murder victims are by way of presidential order, knowing that the world would be out-raged if Assad could be blamed for doing that to his own countries women and children.

What an horrific way to die, and by consequence free presidential order, this is one of a myriad of reasons why America is so loved around the world, and its all expected to be consequence free.




.

 

[Richard Hawkins]

Then you will know all about the false flag sarin attack that killed 500+ women and children that your president rubber stamped.

Their murders were to facilitate American boots on the ground in Syria, without UN sanction, but worldwide approval.
If it wasnt for the Porton Down whistle-blower Obarma would have invaded, and the C.I.A. sarin would have become the centre of conspiracy theory, or as you describe paranoia.

And bytheway those murder victims are by way of presidential order, knowing that the world would be out-raged if Assad could be blamed for doing that to his own countries women and children.

What an horrific way to die, and by consequence free presidential order, this is one of a myriad of reasons why America is so loved around the world, and its all expected to be consequence free.




.

Know I would know nothing about my president rubber stamping anything on the basis that I live in northern Ireland and don't have a president.my suggestion would be that you educate yourself better on world affairs then you can have an educated debate with people and hopefully get rid of your paranoia.

 

[mike]

Governments and security agencies around the world are struggling to contain violent extremism and need to invest more money to stop terrorist attacks, according to a leading Australian terrorism expert.
Dr Clarke Jones from the Australian National University said the threat from radicalised groups and individuals had been underestimated.


Terrorism threat underestimated, expert says, as new centre looks to stop young people being radicalised

 

[Richard Hawkins]

Governments and security agencies around the world are struggling to contain violent extremism and need to invest more money to stop terrorist attacks, according to a leading Australian terrorism expert.
Dr Clarke Jones from the Australian National University said the threat from radicalised groups and individuals had been underestimated.


Terrorism threat underestimated, expert says, as new centre looks to stop young people being radicalised

And I think that statement mike by Dr Jones is a statement of reality

 

[mike]

What about the Crusades?

The obvious response to this question is, “Well, what about them?” Violence committed in the name of other religions is logically unconnected to the question of whether Islam is violent. But, by mentioning the Crusades, the hope of the Islamic apologist is to draw attention away from Islamic violence and paint religions in general as morally equivalent.

In both the Western academia and media as well as in the Islamic world, the Crusades are viewed as wars of aggression fought by bloody-minded Christians against peaceful Muslims. While the Crusades were certainly bloody, they are more accurately understood as a belated Western response to centuries of jihad than as an unprovoked, unilateral attack. Muslim rule in the Holy Land began in the second half of the 7th century during the Arab wave of jihad with the conquests of Damascus and Jerusalem by the second “rightly-guided Caliph,” Umar. After the initial bloody jihad, Christian and Jewish life there was tolerated within the strictures of the dhimma and the Muslim Arabs generally permitted Christians abroad to continue to make pilgrimage to their holy sites, a practice which proved lucrative for the Muslim state. In the 11th century, the relatively benign Arab administration of the Holy Land was replaced with that of Seljuk Turks, due to civil war in the Islamic Empire. Throughout the latter half of the 11th century, the Turks waged war against the Christian Byzantine Empire and pushed it back from its strongholds in Antioch and Anatolia (now Turkey). In 1071, Byzantine forces suffered a crushing defeat at the Battle of Manzikert in what is now Eastern Turkey. The Turks resumed the jihad in the Holy Land, abusing, robbing, enslaving, and killing Christians there and throughout Asia Minor. They threatened to cut off Christendom from its holiest site, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, rebuilt under Byzantine stewardship after it was destroyed by Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah in 1009.

It was in this context of a renewed jihad in the Middle East that the Roman Pope, Urban II, issued a call in 1095 for Western Christians to come to the aid of their Eastern cousins (and seems to have harbored the hope of claiming Jerusalem for the Papacy after the Great Schism with Eastern Christianity in 1054). This “armed pilgrimage,” in which numerous civilians as well as soldiers took part, would eventually become known years later as the First Crusade. The idea of a “crusade” as we now understand that term, i.e., a Christian “holy war,” developed years later with the rise of such organizations as the Knights Templar that made “crusading” a way of life. It worth noting that the most ardent Crusaders, the Franks, were exactly those who had faced jihad and razzias for centuries along the Franco-Spanish border and knew better than most the horrors to which Muslims subjected Christians. At the time of the First Crusade, the populations of Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, though ruled by Muslims, were still overwhelmingly Christian. The “Crusading” campaigns of the Western Christian armies were justified at the time as a war liberating the Eastern Christians, whose population, lands, and culture had been devastated by centuries of jihad and dhimmitude. Conquering territory for God in the mode of jihad was an alien idea to Christianity and it should not be surprising that it eventually died out in the West and never gained ascendancy in the East.

Following the very bloody capture of Jerusalem in 1099 by the Latin armies and the establishment of the Crusader States in Edessa, Antioch, and Jerusalem, the Muslim and Christian forces fought a see-saw series of wars, in which both parties were guilty of the usual gamut of wartime immorality. Over time, even with reinforcing Crusades waged from Europe, the Crusader States, strung out on precarious lines of communication, slowly succumbed to superior Muslim power. In 1271, the last Christian citadel, Antioch, fell to the Muslims. No longer having to divert forces to subdue the Christian beachhead on the Eastern Mediterranean, the Muslims regrouped for a 400-year-long jihad against Southern and Eastern Europe, which twice reached as far as Vienna before it was halted. In geostrategic terms, the Crusades can be viewed as an attempt by the West to forestall its own destruction at the hands of Islamic jihad by carrying the fight to the enemy. It worked for a while.
Significantly, while the West has for some time now lamented the Crusades as mistaken, there has never been any mention from any serious Islamic authority of regret for the centuries and centuries of jihad and dhimmitude perpetrated against other societies. But this is hardly surprising: while religious violence contradicts the fundamentals of Christianity, religious violence is written into Islam’s DNA.

If Islam is violent, why are so many Muslims peaceful?

This question is a bit like asking, “If Christianity teaches humility, tolerance, and forgiveness, why are so many Christians arrogant, intolerant, and vindictive?” The answer in both cases is obvious: in any religion or ideology there will be many who profess, but do not practice, its tenets. Just as it is often easier for a Christian to hit back, play holier-than-thou, or disdain others, so it is often easier for a Muslim to stay at home rather than embark on jihad. Hypocrites are everywhere.

Furthermore, there are also people who do not really understand their own faith and so act outside of its prescribed boundaries. In Islam, there are likely many Muslims who do not really understand their religion thanks to the importance of reciting the Quran in Arabic but not having to understand it. It is the words and sounds of the Quran that attract Allah’s merciful attention rather than Quranic knowledge on the part of the supplicant. Especially in the West, Muslims here are more likely to be attracted by Western ways (which explains why they are here) and less likely to act violently against the society to which they may have fled from an Islamic tyranny abroad.

However, in any given social context, as Islam takes greater root — increasing numbers of followers, the construction of more mosques and “cultural centers,” etc. — the greater the likelihood that some number of its adherents will take its violent precepts seriously. This is the problem that the West faces today.

What about the violent passages in the Bible?

First, violent Biblical passages are irrelevant to the question of whether Islam is violent.
Second, the violent passages in the Bible certainly do not amount to a standing order to commit violence against the rest of the world. Unlike the Quran, the Bible is a huge collection of documents written by different people at different times in different contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom. The Quran, on the other hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad. It is through the life of Muhammad that the Quran must be understood, as the Quran itself says. His wars and killings both reflect and inform the meaning of the Quran. Furthermore, the strict literalism of the Quran means that there is no room for interpretation when it comes to its violent injunctions. As it is through the example of Christ, the “Prince of Peace,” that Christianity interprets its scriptures, so it is through the example of the warlord and despot Muhammad that Muslims understand the Quran.


Islam 101

 

[Richard Hawkins]

What about the Crusades?

The obvious response to this question is, “Well, what about them?” Violence committed in the name of other religions is logically unconnected to the question of whether Islam is violent. But, by mentioning the Crusades, the hope of the Islamic apologist is to draw attention away from Islamic violence and paint religions in general as morally equivalent.

In both the Western academia and media as well as in the Islamic world, the Crusades are viewed as wars of aggression fought by bloody-minded Christians against peaceful Muslims. While the Crusades were certainly bloody, they are more accurately understood as a belated Western response to centuries of jihad than as an unprovoked, unilateral attack. Muslim rule in the Holy Land began in the second half of the 7th century during the Arab wave of jihad with the conquests of Damascus and Jerusalem by the second “rightly-guided Caliph,” Umar. After the initial bloody jihad, Christian and Jewish life there was tolerated within the strictures of the dhimma and the Muslim Arabs generally permitted Christians abroad to continue to make pilgrimage to their holy sites, a practice which proved lucrative for the Muslim state. In the 11th century, the relatively benign Arab administration of the Holy Land was replaced with that of Seljuk Turks, due to civil war in the Islamic Empire. Throughout the latter half of the 11th century, the Turks waged war against the Christian Byzantine Empire and pushed it back from its strongholds in Antioch and Anatolia (now Turkey). In 1071, Byzantine forces suffered a crushing defeat at the Battle of Manzikert in what is now Eastern Turkey. The Turks resumed the jihad in the Holy Land, abusing, robbing, enslaving, and killing Christians there and throughout Asia Minor. They threatened to cut off Christendom from its holiest site, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, rebuilt under Byzantine stewardship after it was destroyed by Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah in 1009.

It was in this context of a renewed jihad in the Middle East that the Roman Pope, Urban II, issued a call in 1095 for Western Christians to come to the aid of their Eastern cousins (and seems to have harbored the hope of claiming Jerusalem for the Papacy after the Great Schism with Eastern Christianity in 1054). This “armed pilgrimage,” in which numerous civilians as well as soldiers took part, would eventually become known years later as the First Crusade. The idea of a “crusade” as we now understand that term, i.e., a Christian “holy war,” developed years later with the rise of such organizations as the Knights Templar that made “crusading” a way of life. It worth noting that the most ardent Crusaders, the Franks, were exactly those who had faced jihad and razzias for centuries along the Franco-Spanish border and knew better than most the horrors to which Muslims subjected Christians. At the time of the First Crusade, the populations of Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, though ruled by Muslims, were still overwhelmingly Christian. The “Crusading” campaigns of the Western Christian armies were justified at the time as a war liberating the Eastern Christians, whose population, lands, and culture had been devastated by centuries of jihad and dhimmitude. Conquering territory for God in the mode of jihad was an alien idea to Christianity and it should not be surprising that it eventually died out in the West and never gained ascendancy in the East.

Following the very bloody capture of Jerusalem in 1099 by the Latin armies and the establishment of the Crusader States in Edessa, Antioch, and Jerusalem, the Muslim and Christian forces fought a see-saw series of wars, in which both parties were guilty of the usual gamut of wartime immorality. Over time, even with reinforcing Crusades waged from Europe, the Crusader States, strung out on precarious lines of communication, slowly succumbed to superior Muslim power. In 1271, the last Christian citadel, Antioch, fell to the Muslims. No longer having to divert forces to subdue the Christian beachhead on the Eastern Mediterranean, the Muslims regrouped for a 400-year-long jihad against Southern and Eastern Europe, which twice reached as far as Vienna before it was halted. In geostrategic terms, the Crusades can be viewed as an attempt by the West to forestall its own destruction at the hands of Islamic jihad by carrying the fight to the enemy. It worked for a while.
Significantly, while the West has for some time now lamented the Crusades as mistaken, there has never been any mention from any serious Islamic authority of regret for the centuries and centuries of jihad and dhimmitude perpetrated against other societies. But this is hardly surprising: while religious violence contradicts the fundamentals of Christianity, religious violence is written into Islam’s DNA.

If Islam is violent, why are so many Muslims peaceful?

This question is a bit like asking, “If Christianity teaches humility, tolerance, and forgiveness, why are so many Christians arrogant, intolerant, and vindictive?” The answer in both cases is obvious: in any religion or ideology there will be many who profess, but do not practice, its tenets. Just as it is often easier for a Christian to hit back, play holier-than-thou, or disdain others, so it is often easier for a Muslim to stay at home rather than embark on jihad. Hypocrites are everywhere.

Furthermore, there are also people who do not really understand their own faith and so act outside of its prescribed boundaries. In Islam, there are likely many Muslims who do not really understand their religion thanks to the importance of reciting the Quran in Arabic but not having to understand it. It is the words and sounds of the Quran that attract Allah’s merciful attention rather than Quranic knowledge on the part of the supplicant. Especially in the West, Muslims here are more likely to be attracted by Western ways (which explains why they are here) and less likely to act violently against the society to which they may have fled from an Islamic tyranny abroad.

However, in any given social context, as Islam takes greater root — increasing numbers of followers, the construction of more mosques and “cultural centers,” etc. — the greater the likelihood that some number of its adherents will take its violent precepts seriously. This is the problem that the West faces today.

What about the violent passages in the Bible?

First, violent Biblical passages are irrelevant to the question of whether Islam is violent.
Second, the violent passages in the Bible certainly do not amount to a standing order to commit violence against the rest of the world. Unlike the Quran, the Bible is a huge collection of documents written by different people at different times in different contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom. The Quran, on the other hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad. It is through the life of Muhammad that the Quran must be understood, as the Quran itself says. His wars and killings both reflect and inform the meaning of the Quran. Furthermore, the strict literalism of the Quran means that there is no room for interpretation when it comes to its violent injunctions. As it is through the example of Christ, the “Prince of Peace,” that Christianity interprets its scriptures, so it is through the example of the warlord and despot Muhammad that Muslims understand the Quran.


Islam 101

I think that's all true and I also believe people who try to tip toe round it in order to be politically correct do the ordinary man in woman in the street a dis service

 

[TrivialSublime]

What about the Crusades?

The obvious response to this question is, “Well, what about them?” Violence committed in the name of other religions is logically unconnected to the question of whether Islam is violent. But, by mentioning the Crusades, the hope of the Islamic apologist is to draw attention away from Islamic violence and paint religions in general as morally equivalent.

In both the Western academia and media as well as in the Islamic world, the Crusades are viewed as wars of aggression fought by bloody-minded Christians against peaceful Muslims. While the Crusades were certainly bloody, they are more accurately understood as a belated Western response to centuries of jihad than as an unprovoked, unilateral attack. Muslim rule in the Holy Land began in the second half of the 7th century during the Arab wave of jihad with the conquests of Damascus and Jerusalem by the second “rightly-guided Caliph,” Umar. After the initial bloody jihad, Christian and Jewish life there was tolerated within the strictures of the dhimma and the Muslim Arabs generally permitted Christians abroad to continue to make pilgrimage to their holy sites, a practice which proved lucrative for the Muslim state. In the 11th century, the relatively benign Arab administration of the Holy Land was replaced with that of Seljuk Turks, due to civil war in the Islamic Empire. Throughout the latter half of the 11th century, the Turks waged war against the Christian Byzantine Empire and pushed it back from its strongholds in Antioch and Anatolia (now Turkey). In 1071, Byzantine forces suffered a crushing defeat at the Battle of Manzikert in what is now Eastern Turkey. The Turks resumed the jihad in the Holy Land, abusing, robbing, enslaving, and killing Christians there and throughout Asia Minor. They threatened to cut off Christendom from its holiest site, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, rebuilt under Byzantine stewardship after it was destroyed by Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah in 1009.

It was in this context of a renewed jihad in the Middle East that the Roman Pope, Urban II, issued a call in 1095 for Western Christians to come to the aid of their Eastern cousins (and seems to have harbored the hope of claiming Jerusalem for the Papacy after the Great Schism with Eastern Christianity in 1054). This “armed pilgrimage,” in which numerous civilians as well as soldiers took part, would eventually become known years later as the First Crusade. The idea of a “crusade” as we now understand that term, i.e., a Christian “holy war,” developed years later with the rise of such organizations as the Knights Templar that made “crusading” a way of life. It worth noting that the most ardent Crusaders, the Franks, were exactly those who had faced jihad and razzias for centuries along the Franco-Spanish border and knew better than most the horrors to which Muslims subjected Christians. At the time of the First Crusade, the populations of Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, though ruled by Muslims, were still overwhelmingly Christian. The “Crusading” campaigns of the Western Christian armies were justified at the time as a war liberating the Eastern Christians, whose population, lands, and culture had been devastated by centuries of jihad and dhimmitude. Conquering territory for God in the mode of jihad was an alien idea to Christianity and it should not be surprising that it eventually died out in the West and never gained ascendancy in the East.

Following the very bloody capture of Jerusalem in 1099 by the Latin armies and the establishment of the Crusader States in Edessa, Antioch, and Jerusalem, the Muslim and Christian forces fought a see-saw series of wars, in which both parties were guilty of the usual gamut of wartime immorality. Over time, even with reinforcing Crusades waged from Europe, the Crusader States, strung out on precarious lines of communication, slowly succumbed to superior Muslim power. In 1271, the last Christian citadel, Antioch, fell to the Muslims. No longer having to divert forces to subdue the Christian beachhead on the Eastern Mediterranean, the Muslims regrouped for a 400-year-long jihad against Southern and Eastern Europe, which twice reached as far as Vienna before it was halted. In geostrategic terms, the Crusades can be viewed as an attempt by the West to forestall its own destruction at the hands of Islamic jihad by carrying the fight to the enemy. It worked for a while.
Significantly, while the West has for some time now lamented the Crusades as mistaken, there has never been any mention from any serious Islamic authority of regret for the centuries and centuries of jihad and dhimmitude perpetrated against other societies. But this is hardly surprising: while religious violence contradicts the fundamentals of Christianity, religious violence is written into Islam’s DNA.

If Islam is violent, why are so many Muslims peaceful?

This question is a bit like asking, “If Christianity teaches humility, tolerance, and forgiveness, why are so many Christians arrogant, intolerant, and vindictive?” The answer in both cases is obvious: in any religion or ideology there will be many who profess, but do not practice, its tenets. Just as it is often easier for a Christian to hit back, play holier-than-thou, or disdain others, so it is often easier for a Muslim to stay at home rather than embark on jihad. Hypocrites are everywhere.

Furthermore, there are also people who do not really understand their own faith and so act outside of its prescribed boundaries. In Islam, there are likely many Muslims who do not really understand their religion thanks to the importance of reciting the Quran in Arabic but not having to understand it. It is the words and sounds of the Quran that attract Allah’s merciful attention rather than Quranic knowledge on the part of the supplicant. Especially in the West, Muslims here are more likely to be attracted by Western ways (which explains why they are here) and less likely to act violently against the society to which they may have fled from an Islamic tyranny abroad.

However, in any given social context, as Islam takes greater root — increasing numbers of followers, the construction of more mosques and “cultural centers,” etc. — the greater the likelihood that some number of its adherents will take its violent precepts seriously. This is the problem that the West faces today.

What about the violent passages in the Bible?

First, violent Biblical passages are irrelevant to the question of whether Islam is violent.
Second, the violent passages in the Bible certainly do not amount to a standing order to commit violence against the rest of the world. Unlike the Quran, the Bible is a huge collection of documents written by different people at different times in different contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom. The Quran, on the other hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad. It is through the life of Muhammad that the Quran must be understood, as the Quran itself says. His wars and killings both reflect and inform the meaning of the Quran. Furthermore, the strict literalism of the Quran means that there is no room for interpretation when it comes to its violent injunctions. As it is through the example of Christ, the “Prince of Peace,” that Christianity interprets its scriptures, so it is through the example of the warlord and despot Muhammad that Muslims understand the Quran.


Islam 101

You failed to address Aborigines.

 

[TrivialSublime]

I think that's all true and I also believe people who try to tip toe round it in order to be politically correct do the ordinary man in woman in the street a dis service

Another faux news acolyte believes everything he reads...

 

[mike]

You failed to address Aborigines.

Because it has nothing to do with the topic, you can throw any social injustice you like up, but its just deflection and distraction.
You may as well ask what about the fact tobacco kills, or what about drunk drivers......

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I would think that if Allah is real, and if Mohammed is indeed his prophet, then they are more than capable of punishing people for drawing cartoons.
It's always the same with the religious lot, they take it upon themselves to 'police' other peoples actions in relation to their prophets, holy men etc.

To me, it actually diminishes the perceived 'power' of Allah, or the divine importance of Mohammed, when some idiots decide death must be visited upon those who draw depictions of the prophet. If Islam is THE real faith, then there will be divine justice against the cartoonists! No need for the ill-educatedFfrench muslims to become self appointed judge, jury and executioners. Allah has all eternity to right such 'wrongs' surely?

While I'm on the subject, the behaviour in Pakistan over perceived blashphemy is unbelievable. Only an accusation need be made before there are baying mobs on the streets demanding death to whomever - and often the 'justice' system does get involved and hands down very serious punishments.
Funny things is, it is usually non-muslims who are accused of blasphemy against Islam. Never is a muslim punished for blasphemy of another religion. And by many reports, often this law is used to settle family/work arguments - nothing to do with religion.

I am of course aware that the majority of religious people want nothing to do with such extreme actions as happened in France, but I do think the moderate community has to do more in identifying those who may have tendencies toward extremism. People are not made into extremists in a vacuum - and I would imagine that in most areas of large cities, the local religious population (of any religion) will be aware of which churches/mosques/temples etc are peddling views that are beyond the norm?

If there started to be attacks in Scotland, perpetrated by people claiming to be from the Free Church of Scotland- a Christian denomination -then I would say that it should be up to members of that church who are not extreme in their views, to provide information on those who are. In other words, to get their own 'house in order'. All faiths should act like that.
Of course, it may be the case that for instance, in Paris right now, this is going on, and for obvious reasons it would not be very public.

 

[TrivialSublime]

Because it has nothing to do with the topic, you can throw any social injustice you like up, but its just deflection and distraction.
You may as well ask what about the fact tobacco kills, or what about drunk drivers......

No it means you're a hypocrite and further demonstrates your agenda