Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Saintly_Jinn23

Slaughter At Charlie Hebdo Magazine In Paris

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The Paris shooting was a false-flag operation. Read Pepe Eskobar's latest piece on RT.

 

 

Cui bono, then, with killing Charlie? Only those whose agenda is to demonize Islam. Not even a bunch of brainwashed fanatics would pull off the Charlie carnage to show people who accuse them of being barbarians that they are, in fact, barbarians. French intel at least has concluded that this is no underwear bomber stunt. This is a pro job. That happens to take place just a few days after France recognizes Palestinian statehood. And just a few days after General Hollande demanded the lifting of sanctions against the Russian "threat". 

 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-080115.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a fanatic murderer tired of living I would not leave behind my ID even if I was ready to die, instead I would go on a killing spree and take as much opponents with me as possible. Why give up after just one shooting when there are so many left to kill in the world? They can always recover my ID from my body when I am finished with, say, Tony Blair, other satanic politicians, muslim hating key figures, widow makers, orphan makers, evil people, etc etc etc., there are so many of them to bag and so little time. Secondly, someone who can murder a blasphemer, a zealot bordering insanity does not wish hero worship from this world rather he wants salvation and the 70 houris of the next life. So the two pieces there do not connect imo. I would also definitely want to say out the last word in front of media or on trial. The secret burial at sea or death by the police would be an alternative in contrast to my hero ego.

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So far, the police named 3 potential suspects:
 
- the Algerian brothers Cherif (32) and Said (34) Kouachi and the 18 years old Hamyd Mourad who is speculated to be a helper.
 
- Cherif drinks alcohol, smokes weed and sleeps with his girlfriend according to his lawyer. A fine muslim indeed. 
 
- 3 attacks occured against muslims in France after the incident, involving shooting and explosions. 2 mosques and a kebab shop near a mosque. No deaths and no wounded. 
 
One side uses violence to tone down "freedom of speech" (< used by hypocrites) and the other uses violence to preserve "freedom of speech". I'd sentence the killers of Charlie to death if we had it in Europe. At the same time, I'd put Charlie on trial for his constant attacks under the guise of humor.
 
--------------

 

Hamyd was in school at the time of the shooting, according to his classmates. He was frightened about his name showing up everywhere in the media and "surrendered".

 

 

Killed. The 'attackers', dead. 

 

Is it the Boston bombing-like evidence removal in action? 

 

Funny that they can get drugs consuming 'muslims' for such attacks. David Headley, an ex-pub owner, was claimed by the western 'crime white-washing' media to have orchestrated the Mumbai 26/11 attacks. And they did not extradite him to India.

Edited by alisayyed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to clarify on some of the statements you said in that comment, my brother - particularily about the comments concerning Prophet `Isa (a.s).

You claimed the following ---

i) Return of al-Maseeh (a.s) is something that has been infused into Islaam through Christianity.

ii) His birth without a human father is not mentioned in the Holy Qur`aan.

My response -

i) It is not necessarily believed that `Isa (a.s) will return as a Prophet - I have not seen proof of that. From what I've seen is that he returns only as the Messiah - because apparently his period as a Prophet of God is over. I also agree with you that he might have died - as the word "wafaat" is used, and the belief that he didn't die might actually be something that has been infused within our religion through Christian influences.

ii) How can you be so sure that the Holy Qur`aan didn't confirm his virgin birth? What about the verse 19:20 where Lady Maryam (a.s) responded to the Angel that came to bring her news of a pure boy, but she said "How can I have a boy while NO MAN has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"

 

 

Create a new thread for this discussion. I will try to answer o the questions u raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good News:

 

1240EST 09Jan15:  The gunman/hostage-taker at the kosher market is dead.

 

Bad News:

 

So are 3 hostages.

 

1300 addendum: RT.com is reporting all suspects DEAD, the Charlie Hedbo "2" included.

 

 

.

 

 

Darth post 94: Isn't your "answer" a little warped?

 

 

Chair Pundit post 101:

 

l'll read Escobar in a moment, but watching this TV coverage l got the thought: How is this French Public reaction any different than the American Public reaction to the St. Valentine's Massacre ?  The constant hype for a political agenda.

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam) Chair Pundit,

 

I read Escobar. He does raise some thoughts. Until l read this, l didn't know the one dead French policeman was Muslim -Abu Jahjah, a guard for Charlie Hedbo.

 

A guest on Charlie Rose, PBS, last night said a "counter narrative is needed". He meant to counter IS.

 

VVe need a counter-narrative to this hype.

 

Using something of comparative scale and public reaction --id est the St. Valentine's Day Massacre-- vve should now call this the St. Charlie's Day Massacre.

 

Or, since hedbo is "week" as l understand, vve can caII it the Saint Hedbo Massacre, or Saint Charlie Hedbo Massacre.

 

Someone have a better counter narrative? Hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ISIL Takfiri group has claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack in Paris and threatened to target the United States and Britain next.

SF/HMV/SS

 

Thank the Almighty it wasn't some innocent. I guess we all wait for our turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Ahamduallah this is over. The stand-offs that is.

 

DW said the supermarket was taken because after talking on the phone with the hostage-taker, he forgot to hang-up. Listening in, the police realized he started doing salah and moved right in. 4 hostages dead there.(l wrote three above as that is the number given at that time.)

 

Champs d-Else (sp?)  The Arch de Triumph (sp?) has the light sign, "Paris est Charlie"

 

 

2045EST Addendum:

 

Here is a rhetorical contortion: If Paris is Charlie -and Charlie insults- then Paris is an insult.

 

From which, we could utilize this syllogistic form to: "Paris insults Islam"

 

Ain't this a good example of being careful what you (French) say?

 

Never know what someone else will make of your words.

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps my wording was wrong, but i did say they were asking for it, especially when ISIS types are running around europe/ME

Mass murdering entire populations is a trend the west already follows.

In regards to the rest of your post:

If you want to take care of these idiots yourselves, why doesn't any muslim do anything about them? We all live too comfortably to do anything about it. All that comes out of peoples mouthes is sheepish lip service. I find it is utter hypocrisy and foolishness to bring this "lets get rid of them ourselves" idea especially now. 

1) I'm not saying we need Muslim vigilante squads going around and killing/capturing extremists like these.  All we need is people to stand up to clerics, mullahs, or even ayatollahs when they start spewing hate, and not ignoring it when they hear people in the masjids talking about extremist things and praising terrorist acts.  If they're too coward to address it right then then there, then notify the FBI, or MI5.  Let them get to the bottom of it.  Saying nothing when you know something is wrong makes you no better than the people saying/doing the wrong things.  In fact, it shows them you approve.

2) I won't go into details, but I chose my current career path so that I could be a part of bringing idiots and bad guys like this to justice.

 

First a media outlet, then a kosher supermarket. Great. The extremists are doing a good job at uniting the liberals, the Christians and the Jews against the menace of "Islam".

 

Whether it was a false flag, whether there is more to it than meets the eye, is something people will never find out. The effect of it, however, would just be the same: Islam and Muslims will feel the heat.

Even if it was a false flag, which I'm 100% positive it wasn't, it doesn't matter!  The problem is that Muslims are so busy trying to make excuses that they aren't seeing (or they're choosing to ignore) that these extremist attitudes exist among Muslims.  And by ignoring the cancer growing within, they're signalling to the rest of the world that they secretly approve.

 

And to anyone who says this was a professional operation with military tactics involved, they are idiots.  Either that or the "professionals" involved were some of the most horribly trained professionals ever.  Show the video to any member of the military or a SWAT team and they'll show you all the mistakes they made.

Hezbollah Chief Nasrallah: Extremists Harm Islam More Than Cartoons

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/09/nasrallah-cartoons_n_6443530.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DW said the supermarket was taken because after talking on the phone with the hostage-taker, he forgot to hang-up. Listening in, the police realized he started doing salah and moved right in.

 

LOOL ...... somebody check on Ali-F and see if he is not missing please. LOOL


Nice combo tho ... Swag, Girlfriend and Salah :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following are some articles pointing to the false-flag angle of this 'attack' (which also happens to be my personal opinion)-

 

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/09/392328/Another-falseflag-operation

 

http://rt.com/op-edge/220959-charlie-hebdo-france-shooting/

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/09/charlie-hebdo-viral/

 

There are many strong points made in these analyses. The VT and RT versions have raised valid questions.

 

While there is no dearth of patsies who think they are doing good to islam with such kind of attacks, please dont generalise and blame entire sects for acts of a few puppets with zionist handlers.

It is very much possible that muslims are not the least bit involved in the attack. 

 

Overall, the attack is a part of an ongoing series of attacks against Islam.

Canada nabs two brothers over terrorism-related charges

 

It is raining terror-brothers.

More ammo fired by the anti-islamists.

 

Request: Please do not discard false-flag narratives without thoroughly investigation. There are compelling evidences and prominent writers are making such claims.

 

Two more articles-

Planted ID card exposes Paris false flag

 

Charlie Hebdo and Tsarnaev’s Trial: Cui bono?

Edited by alisayyed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Maybe, you will consider this a 'warped' thought, but...

 

A sudden upsurge in "on our soil" attacks and arrests. Europe, Canada, US, UK...

 

Widely hyped media over-coverage.

 

Al-Qaida, a US declared "spent force" in 2007, is again a menace. (So we lost the global war on terrorism? After $2+ Trillion in direct military spending.)

 

Mass murder of Muslims is not of any concern. (including freezing in the refugee camps -the misery index)

 

Narrative conforms to the Bush-Cheney lies.

 

Jeb Bush wants to run for el-Presidente. ("See, we/he told you so.!"  Jeb can claim)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I'm not saying we need Muslim vigilante squads going around and killing/capturing extremists like these.  All we need is people to stand up to clerics, mullahs, or even ayatollahs when they start spewing hate, and not ignoring it when they hear people in the masjids talking about extremist things and praising terrorist acts.  If they're too coward to address it right then then there, then notify the FBI, or MI5.  Let them get to the bottom of it.  Saying nothing when you know something is wrong makes you no better than the people saying/doing the wrong things.  In fact, it shows them you approve.

2) I won't go into details, but I chose my current career path so that I could be a part of bringing idiots and bad guys like this to justice.

 

Even if it was a false flag, which I'm 100% positive it wasn't, it doesn't matter!  The problem is that Muslims are so busy trying to make excuses that they aren't seeing (or they're choosing to ignore) that these extremist attitudes exist among Muslims.  And by ignoring the cancer growing within, they're signalling to the rest of the world that they secretly approve.

 

This is definitely one of the main problems as I see it. We should probably take some lessons from the Canadian Muslim community, which has sometimes been quick to report some of their members who display what might be called "radical tendencies" and this has prevented attacks from taking place before.

 

But I would say that "extremist attitudes" doesn't necessarily have to entail that the individual is an extremist themselves. And also sometimes, an idea may not be extreme, but the language with which it is expressed is very aggressive and set a bad example for how to express what is otherwise a good idea. There are some Muslims that think the more aggressive the language, the more pious it is, and that's not always the case.

 

There are times when I notice that although I may agree with the principle of anti-Zionism, the rhetoric from some Muslims, including some of our leaders, when they talk about Jews tends to cross the line of just political rhetoric against the Zionist occupation and advocacy of the rights of Palestinians and instead into a realm of straight anti-Judaism. Even if the intention isn't to be anti-Jewish in this case, certain words can inculcate their own meaning in an audience.

 

Like with people saying "Death to Israel". Obviously, I know that not everybody who says that means it to be "death to all jews" or is asking for a genocide of every civilian living in the state of Israel. However, that's obviously the way some people take it and it causes some people who don't know better to recoil in shock or horror and so their image of Islam is affected. But many people don't also realize is that there are people who would take these words meaning to be exactly that, but embrace it instead of recoil. So when you say "Death to Israel" in this case, somebody else might say "yeah, death to Israel," but when they say it, they actually mean it in a completely different, much more sinister way. And I think that's what makes these radicals so successful in Muslim communities. They speak like Muslims, they act like Muslims, they champion many of our same causes but the meanings of their words and actions are often very different. So it's important for local Muslim leaders to be more proactive in shaping the boundaries of what is the proper public discourse and behavior in their communities that gives the best image of Islam and the social concerns of Muslims in a way that permits the least misinterpretation, but also doesn't allow extremist elements to thrive so easily by camouflaging themselves.

 

 

Canada nabs two brothers over terrorism-related charges

 

It is raining terror-brothers.

More ammo fired by the anti-islamists.

 

Request: Please do not discard false-flag narratives without thoroughly investigation. There are compelling evidences and prominent writers are making such claims.

 

Two more articles-

Planted ID card exposes Paris false flag

 

Charlie Hebdo and Tsarnaev’s Trial: Cui bono?

 

I don't rule out the possibility of a false-flag attack. From the beginning I found the timing to be extremely suspicious, but whether it was false flag attack or not should not distract us from the fact that there is a virus in Muslim communities that needs cured and that any false flag attack against us would be useless if the international Muslim communities had no radical tendencies and had instead better leadership. I'm pretty sure most of the people fighting for ISIS in Iraq aren't CIA agents, regardless of how ISIS got its weapons.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) But I would say that "extremist attitudes" doesn't necessarily have to entail that the individual is an extremist themselves. And also sometimes, an idea may not be extreme, but the language with which it is expressed is very aggressive and set a bad example for how to express what is otherwise a good idea. There are some Muslims that think the more aggressive the language, the more pious it is, and that's not always the case.

 

There are times when I notice that although I may agree with the principle of anti-Zionism, the rhetoric from some Muslims, including some of our leaders, when they talk about Jews tends to cross the line of just political rhetoric against the Zionist occupation and advocacy of the rights of Palestinians and instead into a realm of straight anti-Judaism. Even if the intention isn't to be anti-Jewish in this case, certain words can inculcate their own meaning in an audience.

 

Like with people saying "Death to Israel". Obviously, I know that not everybody who says that means it to be "death to all jews" or is asking for a genocide of every civilian living in the state of Israel. However, that's obviously the way some people take it and it causes some people who don't know better to recoil in shock or horror and so their image of Islam is affected. But many people don't also realize is that there are people who would take these words meaning to be exactly that, but embrace it instead of recoil. So when you say "Death to Israel" in this case, somebody else might say "yeah, death to Israel," but when they say it, they actually mean it in a completely different, much more sinister way. And I think that's what makes these radicals so successful in Muslim communities. They speak like Muslims, they act like Muslims, they champion many of our same causes but the meanings of their words and actions are often very different. So it's important for local Muslim leaders to be more proactive in shaping the boundaries of what is the proper public discourse and behavior in their communities that gives the best image of Islam and the social concerns of Muslims in a way that permits the least misinterpretation, but also doesn't allow extremist elements to thrive so easily by camouflaging themselves.

 

 

 

2) I don't rule out the possibility of a false-flag attack. From the beginning I found the timing to be extremely suspicious, but whether it was false flag attack or not should not distract us from the fact that there is a virus in Muslim communities that needs cured and that any false flag attack against us would be useless if the international Muslim communities had no radical tendencies and had instead better leadership. I'm pretty sure most of the people fighting for ISIS in Iraq aren't CIA agents, regardless of how ISIS got its weapons.

1) Right, we have to be aware of how our attitudes are conveyed and perceived by others.  Others being both fellow Muslims and non-Muslims.  Additionally, in the past, I've seen cases where people praise Palestinian attacks against Israel, but then turn around and condemn them when it happens here.  We can't have that double standard.  Terrorism is terrorism no matter where it is.  Killing civilians should always be off limits.

 

2) Bingo.  It doesn't matter if it was a false flag or not, ignoring the extremism and radicalism that is festering in the Muslim world is what is allowing extremist organisations like ISIS/AQ to grow in different parts of the world, and it all gives credence to any false flags. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to mention that a lot of these terrorists are born and raised in western societies and get even radicalized in those countries...so a question to answer would also be, why and how is this possible? Why are certain young people attracted by IS and easy to manipulate?What can parents,friends society and muslim communities do, to prevent a radicalization of the youth...and so forth.

Edited by mina313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to mention that a lot of these terrorists are born and raised in western societies and get even radicalized in those countries...so a question to answer would also be, why and how is this possible? Why are certain young people attracted by IS and easy to manipulate?What can parents,friends society and muslim communities do, to prevent a radicalization of the youth...and so forth.

Does not matter whether you were born in western countries or not. As long as you are a Sunni, you are taught to deny truth and support terrorism. If you don't believe me, go attend a Sunni Mosque on Jummah and see what they preach about.

Also, young people are motivated by ISIS because it's Sunnah. Ironically I don't know why Sunnis still insist they are on the correct path. Would the correct path lead you to go astray and kill children? Lol

And wow 15,000 germans protest against islam and now 700,000 rally in france.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-200-000-rally-france-islamist-attacks-145317017.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I do not know why people act as if they do not know whether Sunnis or Shias committed these terrorist attacks within the last 15 years.

Some of us say the wahabis are the bad ones, not the Sunnis. Like really??? How can you have Sunnis without wahabis/salafis? And do they have their own mosque where only wahabis/salafis are allowed? I think not. The conclusion is Sunni IS wahabi whether you like to believe it or not. I can't stress that enough.

And I highly bet the next big terrorist attack is going to be a Sunni.

What can we do? We can start aknowledging ourselves as "Shias" instead of "muslims." Only till then will the world realize islam is peaceful. Like I keep saying. When you ask a person who is against Islam, they will most likely refer to "Muslims" and in their head it's mostly them imaging Sunni terrorist acts. Should Shias keep falling because of this? Should we be held accountable??? NO.

We definitely should not even try to unite with Sunnis on a religious stand point of view because it's not working. This is like a good guy or girl trying to get back with the bad guy or girl. It only sets one up for failure down the road.

P.S. the people of the book are: shias, christians, jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I do not know why people act as if they do not know whether Sunnis or Shias committed these terrorist attacks within the last 15 years.

Some of us say the wahabis are the bad ones, not the Sunnis. Like really??? How can you have Sunnis without wahabis/salafis? And do they have their own mosque where only wahabis/salafis are allowed? I think not. The conclusion is Sunni IS wahabi whether you like to believe it or not. I can't stress that enough.

And I highly bet the next big terrorist attack is going to be a Sunni.

What can we do? We can start aknowledging ourselves as "Shias" instead of "muslims." Only till then will the world realize islam is peaceful. Like I keep saying. When you ask a person who is against Islam, they will most likely refer to "Muslims" and in their head it's mostly them imaging Sunni terrorist acts. Should Shias keep falling because of this? Should we be held accountable??? NO.

We definitely should not even try to unite with Sunnis on a religious stand point of view because it's not working. This is like a good guy or girl trying to get back with the bad guy or girl. It only sets one up for failure down the road.

P.S. the people of the book are: shias, christians, jews.

I disagree.

 

Shias can't exactly claim to be saints.  Look at Hezbollah.  They pretty much invented the suicide bomber.  They have admitted to, and been implicated in, many terrorist activities where civilians have died.  And anyone who thinks Iran just sits around twiddling its thumbs, not funding Palestinian suicide bombers or other extremist groups is just being naive.

 

Both Shia and Sunni extremists have plenty of blood on their hands.  Unfortunately, in more recent times, the Sunni extremists have taken center stage and become more prominent.

 

Additionally, claiming Shiaism as your religion instead of Islam is just running from the problem, not trying to fix it.  I don't know if it's fixable, but the only way to try is by working with our Sunni brothers to eradicate the extremist problem.

 

And no, people of the book aren't Shias, Christians and Jews.  The prophet wasn't a Shia.  Imam Ali wasn't a Shia.  Abu Bakr wasn't a Sunni.  They were Muslim.  And they never claimed anything else.  If you want to deviate from the example of our Prophet and the Imams, that's your choice.  But don't encourage others to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

 

Shias can't exactly claim to be saints.  Look at Hezbollah.  They pretty much invented the suicide bomber.  They have admitted to, and been implicated in, many terrorist activities where civilians have died.  And anyone who thinks Iran just sits around twiddling its thumbs, not funding Palestinian suicide bombers or other extremist groups is just being naive.

 

 

Let me show you what happens when you make up things out of thin air. Heres an example:

 

Look at coldcow. He pretty much invented suicide bombers.  He admitted to, and been implicated in, many terrorist activities where civilians have died.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I do not know why people act as if they do not know whether Sunnis or Shias committed these terrorist attacks within the last 15 years.

Some of us say the wahabis are the bad ones, not the Sunnis. Like really??? How can you have Sunnis without wahabis/salafis? And do they have their own mosque where only wahabis/salafis are allowed? I think not. The conclusion is Sunni IS wahabi whether you like to believe it or not. I can't stress that enough.

And I highly bet the next big terrorist attack is going to be a Sunni.

 

It's unfair to blame all Sunnis for Wahabism. Wahabism is an ideological current that traces itself to scholars like Ibn Abd al Wahab and Ibn Taymiyyah, whom historically, most Sunnis rejected.

 

Now, this doesn't mean that Wahabism itself hasn't trickled down into the general Sunni discourse. This is where I'd agree that even some of our leaders are being a tad naive. The fact is that many Islamic organizations which are predominately Sunni that are here in the West have plenty of "moderate Wahabis" and "half Wahabis" in them.

 

The Islamic Society of North America, The Muslim Student Associations, The Muslim Council of Britain, etc. All these organizations have plenty of Wahabis in them, and in some cases are ran or funded by Wahabi dawah organizations. As a result, even if many of our Sunni brothers don't realize it, they may have adopted some Wahabi sympathies that have less to do with traditional Sunnism and more to do with reformist schools whose ideas have been propagated by charities funded by or based in Saudi Arabia or whose boards are made up of members of Jamaat-e-Islami and other Sunni Islamist groups whose ideology is based in Wahabi or Salafi reformism and politics.

 

So, I think some of our leaders have made a mistake in that they have not yet recognized that many of the major Islamic organizations in the West are infected with Wahabi sympathies and often headed by Wahabis who get paychecks from governments who patronize and support Wahabi ideology. Even if not all the members of these groups necessarily fall into the category of hardcore Wahabis or consider themselves Wahabis. We notice this in many debates or objection Sunnis in general bring towards other Muslims. The way they confront Sufis (who are mostly Sunni in confession and fiqh) and Shi'a for their unique practices or doctrines. They may call themselves "Sunni" but their conception of Sunni is informed by Wahabism.

 

Some of them might object to being called a Wahabi,Salafi a Sunni, a Hanafi, a Hanbali, or whatever else and say they're just Muslim and only follow the "Qur'an and Sunnah," but their conception of what it means to be "Muslim" what the meaning of the Qur'an is and their understanding of what is entailed by the Sunnah is often a Wahabi-Salafi conception, whether they choose to agree with the label or not.

 

So, when we say the problem is Wahabis and not Sunnis, we need to realize that Wahabi doctrines may be found to some extent kept by a large number of people who call themselves Sunnis, depending on the area or organization. And some Sunnis who have Wahabi sympathies may see the distinction as meaningless since for them "Wahabism" is just a derogatory term for what is for them true Sunnism.

 

This doesn't mean there aren't plenty of Sunnis who do not partake in the Wahabi ideology, but these Sunnis tend to let themselves be run over by the more assertive Wahabi types, even when they are the majority in a given area.

 

 

 

Just want to mention that a lot of these terrorists are born and raised in western societies and get even radicalized in those countries...so a question to answer would also be, why and how is this possible? Why are certain young people attracted by IS and easy to manipulate?What can parents,friends society and muslim communities do, to prevent a radicalization of the youth...and so forth.

 

It's because Western democracies tend to have laws concerning freedom of worship which permit almost an ideology to teach and gather converts. Say what you want about the secular dictatorships in the Middle East, but at least some of them were able to keep radicals from the Wahabi-Salafi camps in line.

 

In the West, they take advantage of the liberties granted by Western countries to spread their cancer to Muslims and non-Muslims suffering from the sickness of alienation and boredom that plagues much of Western youth.

 

In the case of the United States, the atmosphere doesn't seem to permit radicalism as much. On the one hand, the US government is less tolerant of such extremism in its own country and on the other hand, many Muslims in the United States comes from greater economic and educational backgrounds than those migrants who move to Europe. Plus, the United States' economy is much better than European countries and Muslims who come here tend to have an easier time finding jobs or good schooling.

 

It is worth noting that the greatest sympathies towards Al-Qaeda found in American Muslim communities tend come its own native black or white populations of Muslim converts, not from its Asian or Middle Eastern migrant communities.

 

I think the best thing the leaders of the Shi'a community can do is accept that if the Sunnis wish to be Wahabis or sympathize with Wahabis, we as Shi'a cannot force them or shame them into thinking otherwise. It is not our place to define what Sunnism should be for Sunnis or to tell the Sunnis that their conceptions of "Islamic unity" must include us, whether they like it or not. We should also argue against Wahabism more from a Shi'a standpoint: emphasizing the primacy and virtue of the character of Ahlul Bayt, their authority and the transforming grace and mercy brought by commitment to Islam as they have related it to us. When we argue from a strictly Pan-Islamic platform, two question arise: Should such unity favor the Shi'a's doctrines when they only represent 15% of the population and if the Shi'a are concerned about Islamic unity, why then do they continue to hold sectarian doctrines?

 

If the majority of Sunnis decide Islamic unity should be based on upholding the image of the three caliphs and following Islam as they exemplified it, what then will Shi'a do? Demand that some 80% of all Muslims stop for a single minority's sake?

 

The best way I think to fight Wahabism is to impress Sunnis with our piety and good deeds, and to do these good deeds in the name of Ahlul Bayt so they know from whom this virtue proceeds. In that way, perhaps, we may be able to impart a common Ahlul Bayt centered consciousness because that is the only sure fire way to make sure the qualities of mercy and intellect thrive in Muslim circles. But we cannot force the Sunnis to excommunicate Wahabis and Salafis from their mosques, we cannot force Sunnis to define Sunnism in a way that is more friendly to Shi'ism and we cannot force Sunnis to accept us in their organizations or consider our political aspirations as their own unless they choose that to be the case. Sunnis don't really need us and so part of the reason Islamic unity is so hard to come by between Shi'a and Sunnis is because the Sunnis have never had much need for a "schismatic minority" such as ourselves. If anything, I would say we are in a present state where we are more dependent on them for acceptance than they are of us.

 

An organized and devout Shi'a community that can compete with the Sunnis in the doing of good deeds and gaining converts among the West may be the best way to compel the Sunnis to question their ways.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, some Muslims are being so "overly-moderate" that they are forgetting the crimes of Charlie Hebdo in the first place. No doubt that Muslims have nothing to do with those terrorists and Muslims in France have been victims of Islamophobic attacks after this incident, but Muslims shouldn't need to clear up there names by supporting Charlie Hebdo unconditionally in the name of "freedom of speech."

 

JeSuisCharlie is not a show of support of freedom of speech, what these masses seem to think; rather, it's a show of it being permissible to insult somebody else's religion, mock their beliefs, and insult pious figures directly.

 

There real hero of that day was Ahmad the dead cop. I just had to share these wise words here: "I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed

Edited by Jaabir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unfair to blame all Sunnis for Wahabism. Wahabism is an ideological current that traces itself to scholars like Ibn Abd al Wahab and Ibn Taymiyyah, whom historically, most Sunnis rejected.

 

Now, this doesn't mean that Wahabism itself hasn't trickled down into the general Sunni discourse. This is where I'd agree that even some of our leaders are being a tad naive. The fact is that many Islamic organizations which are predominately Sunni that are here in the West have plenty of "moderate Wahabis" and "half Wahabis" in them.

 

The Islamic Society of North America, The Muslim Student Associations, The Muslim Council of Britain, etc. All these organizations have plenty of Wahabis in them, and in some cases are ran or funded by Wahabi dawah organizations. As a result, even if many of our Sunni brothers don't realize it, they may have adopted some Wahabi sympathies that have less to do with traditional Sunnism and more to do with reformist schools whose ideas have been propagated by charities funded by or based in Saudi Arabia or whose boards are made up of members of Jamaat-e-Islami and other Sunni Islamist groups whose ideology is based in Wahabi or Salafi reformism and politics.

 

So, I think some of our leaders have made a mistake in that they have not yet recognized that many of the major Islamic organizations in the West are infected with Wahabi sympathies and often headed by Wahabis who get paychecks from governments who patronize and support Wahabi ideology. Even if not all the members of these groups necessarily fall into the category of hardcore Wahabis or consider themselves Wahabis. We notice this in many debates or objection Sunnis in general bring towards other Muslims. The way they confront Sufis (who are mostly Sunni in confession and fiqh) and Shi'a for their unique practices or doctrines. They may call themselves "Sunni" but their conception of Sunni is informed by Wahabism.

 

Some of them might object to being called a Wahabi,Salafi a Sunni, a Hanafi, a Hanbali, or whatever else and say they're just Muslim and only follow the "Qur'an and Sunnah," but their conception of what it means to be "Muslim" what the meaning of the Qur'an is and their understanding of what is entailed by the Sunnah is often a Wahabi-Salafi conception, whether they choose to agree with the label or not.

 

So, when we say the problem is Wahabis and not Sunnis, we need to realize that Wahabi doctrines may be found to some extent kept by a large number of people who call themselves Sunnis, depending on the area or organization. And some Sunnis who have Wahabi sympathies may see the distinction as meaningless since for them "Wahabism" is just a derogatory term for what is for them true Sunnism.

 

This doesn't mean there aren't plenty of Sunnis who do not partake in the Wahabi ideology, but these Sunnis tend to let themselves be run over by the more assertive Wahabi types, even when they are the majority in a given area.

 

 

 

 

It's because Western democracies tend to have laws concerning freedom of worship which permit almost an ideology to teach and gather converts. Say what you want about the secular dictatorships in the Middle East, but at least some of them were able to keep radicals from the Wahabi-Salafi camps in line.

 

In the West, they take advantage of the liberties granted by Western countries to spread their cancer to Muslims and non-Muslims suffering from the sickness of alienation and boredom that plagues much of Western youth.

 

In the case of the United States, the atmosphere doesn't seem to permit radicalism as much. On the one hand, the US government is less tolerant of such extremism in its own country and on the other hand, many Muslims in the United States comes from greater economic and educational backgrounds than those migrants who move to Europe. Plus, the United States' economy is much better than European countries and Muslims who come here tend to have an easier time finding jobs or good schooling.

 

It is worth noting that the greatest sympathies towards Al-Qaeda found in American Muslim communities tend come its own native black or white populations of Muslim converts, not from its Asian or Middle Eastern migrant communities.

 

I think the best thing the leaders of the Shi'a community can do is accept that if the Sunnis wish to be Wahabis or sympathize with Wahabis, we as Shi'a cannot force them or shame them into thinking otherwise. It is not our place to define what Sunnism should be for Sunnis or to tell the Sunnis that their conceptions of "Islamic unity" must include us, whether they like it or not. We should also argue against Wahabism more from a Shi'a standpoint: emphasizing the primacy and virtue of the character of Ahlul Bayt, their authority and the transforming grace and mercy brought by commitment to Islam as they have related it to us. When we argue from a strictly Pan-Islamic platform, two question arise: Should such unity favor the Shi'a's doctrines when they only represent 15% of the population and if the Shi'a are concerned about Islamic unity, why then do they continue to hold sectarian doctrines?

 

If the majority of Sunnis decide Islamic unity should be based on upholding the image of the three caliphs and following Islam as they exemplified it, what then will Shi'a do? Demand that some 80% of all Muslims stop for a single minority's sake?

 

The best way I think to fight Wahabism is to impress Sunnis with our piety and good deeds, and to do these good deeds in the name of Ahlul Bayt so they know from whom this virtue proceeds. In that way, perhaps, we may be able to impart a common Ahlul Bayt centered consciousness because that is the only sure fire way to make sure the qualities of mercy and intellect thrive in Muslim circles. But we cannot force the Sunnis to excommunicate Wahabis and Salafis from their mosques, we cannot force Sunnis to define Sunnism in a way that is more friendly to Shi'ism and we cannot force Sunnis to accept us in their organizations or consider our political aspirations as their own unless they choose that to be the case. Sunnis don't really need us and so part of the reason Islamic unity is so hard to come by between Shi'a and Sunnis is because the Sunnis have never had much need for a "schismatic minority" such as ourselves. If anything, I would say we are in a present state where we are more dependent on them for acceptance than they are of us.

 

An organized and devout Shi'a community that can compete with the Sunnis in the doing of good deeds and gaining converts among the West may be the best way to compel the Sunnis to question their ways.

Not really, my friend, if you know Sunnism, you would know that it's not just Ibn Taymiyyah, ibn Abdul Wahhab and their likes. Just search up Abu Hanifa's words regarding the Rafidha, or better yet - search up the statistics which show how much do Sunnies really accept Shi`ism. The acceptance rate towards Shi`ism is not high I tell you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Let me show you what happens when you make up things out of thin air. Heres an example:

 

Look at coldcow. He pretty much invented suicide bombers.  He admitted to, and been implicated in, many terrorist activities where civilians have died.  

Prove me wrong.  If you can point out examples where suicide bombing was used as a tactic by an organization prior to the Lebanese civil war, I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong.  And kamikaze pilots don't count.  I'm looking for specific examples of people strapping bombs to themselves and/or in a vehicle, and detonating near a target.  Bonus points if you can find an example where such a tactic was used against civilians prior to the 80's.

 

 

JeSuisCharlie is not a show of support of freedom of speech, what these masses seem to think; rather, it's a show of it being permissible to insult somebody else's religion, mock their beliefs, and insult pious figures directly.

 

There real hero of that day was Ahmad the dead cop. I just had to share these wise words here: "I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed

People on this board insult and say horrible things about AbuBakr, Umar, Uthman all the time.  The problem with Muslims is we mock other faiths, say things like the bible is all made up, mock the trinity, say horrible things about Jews, but when someone says something bad about/to us, we can't take it.  

 

And I applaud Ahmed, the police officer, for being a police officer and contributing to French society.  But I doubt he knew who those gunmen were attacking and why.  He wasn't defending anyone's right to ridicule faith/culture, he was doing his job in trying to stop two random murders.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Prove me wrong. If you can point out examples where suicide bombing was used as a tactic by an organization prior to the Lebanese civil war, I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong. And kamikaze pilots don't count. I'm looking for specific examples of people strapping bombs to themselves and/or in a vehicle, and detonating near a target. Bonus points if you can find an example where such a tactic was used against civilians prior to the 80's.

People on this board insult and say horrible things about AbuBakr, Umar, Uthman all the time. The problem with Muslims is we mock other faiths, say things like the bible is all made up, mock the trinity, say horrible things about Jews, but when someone says something bad about/to us, we can't take it.

And I applaud Ahmed, the police officer, for being a police officer and contributing to French society. But I doubt he knew who those gunmen were attacking and why. He wasn't defending anyone's right to ridicule faith/culture, he was doing his job in trying to stop two random murders.

My pleasure. First I will quote from the following link and you can read the rest for the details on what he did. "Russian terrorist Ignaty Grinevitsky found that one effective way to use a dynamite bomb was to couple it to a human trigger."

http://origins.osu.edu/article/human-use-human-beings-brief-history-suicide-bombing

Then the Japanese took the idea from the Russians.

Also it makes no difference before 80s or after its the same concept.

Plus Hizballah was born in 1982. The first ever suicide mission done in the 80s was carried out in 1983 by Islamic Jihad a Palestinian group. Hizballah was still in its infant stage. Hizballah only martyr operations targeted Israeli soldiers and Israeli bases. They have never ever done an operations in which civilians were killed. In fact part of Hizballah code is if their is a civilian in the way they abort the operation or wait until it's clear. All the accusations you hear about them by the west is only to tarnish it's image and have no proof what's so ever. One proof of that the investment by Congress of 500 million dollars in Lebanon just to tarnish Hizballah image after they defeated Israel in 2006. They had become very popular in the region so they had to do something about it. One fun fact for you the 2006 war Hizballah had zero martyr operations. They don't need them anymore. They got missiles now. Overall Hizballah martyr operations you can count them on your hands. Anyways I don't want to derail the thread. Believe what you want.

Edited by Martyrdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, my friend, if you know Sunnism, you would know that it's not just Ibn Taymiyyah, ibn Abdul Wahhab and their likes. Just search up Abu Hanifa's words regarding the Rafidha, or better yet - search up the statistics which show how much do Sunnies really accept Shi`ism. The acceptance rate towards Shi`ism is not high I tell you...

 

I'm not denying that. Which is why I believe we must clarify what we mean by Islamic unity with Sunnis, because Sunnism as a branch defined itself as an umbrella term in opposition to what was usually called Shi'ism.

 

But I don't think this opposition need to take the vociferous, violent form we see in Wahabism. Historically, Sunnis were willing to tolerate Shi'a, albeit as a misguided sect and often shared many doctrines with them. Wahabism is a kind of like an extreme form of Protestant Reformism within the Muslim world. Before the conflict between Shia and Sunni was more like what you'd see between Roman Catholics and Orthodox or between different branches of Orthodoxy. Now it's more like Calvinism vs Catholicism thanks to the fire and brimstone preaching of Wahabis and their religious fundamentalism. It seeks to redefine Sunnism using Sunni arguments and tradition, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the heart of what Sunni has meant for over a thousand years. In many ways, it defines itself as expressly against what would be called "Sunni tradition" because it sees such tradition as having tons upon tons of bi'dah due to years of mixing with Sufis, Christians, and Shi'a.  My view, however, is that we cannot tell the Sunnis to what degree they must accept the Shi'a as fellow Muslims nor can we say how they should define themselves as Sunnis or to what extent they should "Shi'ify" themselves. That's something they need to decide themselves. We can't guilt trip them or hang the specter of the Western colonial powers over their heads. And whatever choice they make, we must accept that decision and act among ourselves in the proper manner.

 

Prove me wrong.  If you can point out examples where suicide bombing was used as a tactic by an organization prior to the Lebanese civil war, I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong.  And kamikaze pilots don't count.  I'm looking for specific examples of people strapping bombs to themselves and/or in a vehicle, and detonating near a target.  Bonus points if you can find an example where such a tactic was used against civilians prior to the 80's.

 

Actually, some of the earliest suicide bombers during the Lebanese Civil War tended to come from the Communist and Christian camps, it was only later that Hezbollah jumped on the bandwagon.

 

Also, many suicide bombings get blamed on Hezbollah without any proof.

 

Hezbollah does use suicide bombers but from what I've noticed, those which they take credit for tend to be against IDF targets. :donno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. My pleasure. First I will quote from the following link and you can read the rest for the details on what he did. "Russian terrorist Ignaty Grinevitsky found that one effective way to use a dynamite bomb was to couple it to a human trigger."

http://origins.osu.edu/article/human-use-human-beings-brief-history-suicide-bombing

Then the Japanese took the idea from the Russians.

Also it makes no difference before 80s or after its the same concept.

Plus Hizballah was born in 1982. The first ever suicide mission done in the 80s was carried out in 1983 by Islamic Jihad a Palestinian group. Hizballah was still in its infant stage. Hizballah only martyr operations targeted Israeli soldiers and Israeli bases. They have never ever done an operations in which civilians were killed. In fact part of Hizballah code is if their is a civilian in the way they abort the operation or wait until it's clear. All the accusations you hear about them by the west is only to tarnish it's image and have no proof what's so ever. One proof of that the investment by Congress of 500 million dollars in Lebanon just to tarnish Hizballah image after they defeated Israel in 2006. They had become very popular in the region so they had to do something about it. One fun fact for you the 2006 war Hizballah had zero martyr operations. They don't need them anymore. They got missiles now. Overall Hizballah martyr operations you can count them on your hands. Anyways I don't want to derail the thread. Believe what you want.

You've got some good points.  But that Russian guy didn't exactly set out to be a suicide bomber.  He wasn't promised martyrdom and paradise for killing someone else.  He just got too close to his target and had no choice but to either fail at his objective, or throw his explosive and possibly get killed in the process.  He didn't strap bombs to himself and detonate himself trying to take out his target.  And a suicide mission isn't necessarily the same as a suicide bombing, although there is overlap.  I already acknowledged the Kamikaze, which arguably were promised martyrdom(in their own way) for their actions.  So I'd say they're a better comparison than the Russians.

 

Islamic Jihad is apparently Shia, which goes back to my larger point.   Perhaps I was wrong in pointing fingers at Hezbollah.  Also, upon further research it appears as though another Shia group, al-Dawa, was responsible for a suicide bombing at the Beirut Iraqi embassy.  Now I'll admit that the only evidence pointing towards Hezbollah in many suicide missions is from Western countries, as well as smaller countries like Argentina.  But I think it's a bit naive to think that Hezbollah (with the aid of Iran) funnels all these resources to the Palestinians, and to other organizations that do carry out suicide attacks against civilians, and has no say in how those resources are used.  Is that tacit approval?  Get someone else to do your dirty work.

 

Don't get me wrong, I was cheering for Hezbollah in 2006.  But just because their hands look clean from the outside perspective, doesn't mean they haven't already been washed.  One thing I always try to do is call out things when they're wrong, no matter which side is doing it.  I believe Hezbollah was behind more attacks than they take credit for (ether themselves, or through a subsidiary/partnership), especially considering they are pretty much the de facto government in South Lebanon.  

 

By the way, the article that you posted seems to acknowledge the point I was making about Shias/Iran/Hezbollah and suicide bombers.

Edited by coldcow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* I'll repeat it again. Splitting Wahabism and Sunni is not going to happen because they are literally the same thing. Let's take ISIS for example. Ask them if they are Sunni or wahabi. They will say they are Sunni lol but you will get a lot of other sunnis saying ISIS is not muslim BECAUSE they do not want to accept the truth like when they denied caliphate to Ali! I think anyone who is in denial of this should open their eyes and realize that this is the truth. The reality.

C'mon we cannot reason with people who disagree when you shove them 2 fabricated narrations from their Bukari Hadiths regarding Prophet Muhammad migrating to medina and seeing jews fasting that show 2 different months, in their faces lol. Yet they still say Shia made up Ashura and so they fast on Ashura hahaha. This is why I left the Sunni sect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslim employee saves lives during hostage situation

Don't know if anyone has posted this already or not. Well, not that these French antil-Islam demonstrants will care, either way -.- But I don't understand what exactly they expect from their demonstrations. I mean, how many Muslims are there in France? Lots and lots of them and they not all of them are from an immigrant background. So, they want also to throw out Fench people who converted to Islam? And if they are already on it, throw out all the immigrants and citizens with an immigration background - how many will be left in FFrance? Same with Germany, thouh it's not that bad here, yet.

There might be a huge problem for the Muslims if the right-wing comes into power - and they'll use the current situation just as Hitler used the situation back then to gain power. Well, since I'm an optimist, let's hope for the best.

Btw, I don't think that we should point with our fingers at other Muslims, especially not yet. I do get the frustration, but honestly, how many western people will care for the differences between Sunni and Shia and terrorism? Yes, many Wahhabis have infiltrated Sunni mosques and mostly, Sunnis don't even realise it, that's a problem everywhere. But what to do against it? Watch more closely over mosques and what the people are preached, maybe. I don't know...

Wa salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...