Explosions and Gunfire Reported At Three Locations In Paris

[Econoline]

Here you go, Meade: http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/

(Or if you prefer, you can read it in the original Arabic. Or you can download the entire 76-page document [in both English and Arabic, with citations of the Qu'ran and the Hadith, plus copious footnotes]; if you do, be sure to check the list on pages 28 through 34 of the names and credentials of all 126 of the original signatories.)

Executive Summary

1. It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas , and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith .

2. It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.

3. It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.

4. It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.

5. It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.

6. It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.

7. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.

8. Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.

9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.

10. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.

11. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.

12. The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.

13. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.

14. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.

15. It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.

16. It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud ) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.

17. It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.

18. It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.

19. It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God.

20. It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.

21. Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.

22. It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.

23. Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.

24. After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

[BoSoxGal]

It's my understanding that current scholarly estimates put the number of 'witches' killed over the years in various countries at between 40,000 - 100,000.

I would think even that a low estimate, as I imagine recording-keeping of witch burnings might not have been terribly exact, and the temptation to kill (especially uppity) women for any reason under the sun seems to suggest that 'killing witches' would've been a good tool to have in the bag of oppression tricks, no?

Although in many countries it is probably just as easy to falsely accuse a woman of adultery within a system that requires an impossible burden of evidence to prove one's innocence, and then stone her when she fails to meet that burden.

[Lord Jim]

It's my understanding that current scholarly estimates put the number of 'witches' killed over the years in various countries at between 40,000 - 100,000.

I'd be interested to know just what those "scholarly estimates" are based on....

[Guinevere]

other quotes deleted because of stupid formatting rules

it translates to: they have guns (or arms), but too bad, we have champagne.

My reaction to that "cartoon" is that it was juvenile and extremely tasteless, especially given the timing. I wonder how amusing the family members of the 129 people who were murdered found it to be.

You do understand it is Charlie Hebdo, don't you? Think they get it?

[Lord Jim]

You do understand it is Charlie Hebdo, don't you?

Yes, which in addition to being juvenile and tasteless also makes it weird....

[RayThom]

... distort, misinterpret, and manipulate the scriptures all the time. Only those words that fit their agenda is what they preach. Fortunately, somewhere outside the sanctimony, the true believers find the real meanings, and what works best for the masses.

As with all the righteousness out there it's the empty barrels that make the most noise. Amen.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[rubato]

You too miss the point. A church (more than one) decided to condemn "witches". (And it seems mostly in Germanic countries or am I misunderstanding that?). But it is not a condition of the Christian faith and never purported to be. Killing infidels is a condition of Islam, plainly stated and plainly understood

Sophistry comes in when trying to explain that away - which so far is being done with monotonous regularity by folks who don't produce anything in the way of facts or evidence.

There is no Christian command "in order to be a good Christian you need to kill witches". That is not true with Islam which requires the explaining away of the very clear suras that deal with forcing unbelievers to obey, pay taxes or die; it being the duty of the Moslem to ensure that happens.

Still more revisionism. The christian church acted sytematically on the command to kill witches across most of europe for 500+ years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... witchcraft
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/ ... e-present/

"...
The following account is related in Charles MacKay’s “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions: Part I” published in 1841, in the chapter called “The Witch Mania.”

This passage describes the genocide of the people living in a particular part of northern Europe. They were the people of Stedinger. “The Stedinger were settlers, mostly from Holland, who opened up marshy land next to Friesland, on the Weser. For refusing to pay tithes to the Archbishop of Bremen, a crusade was preached against them and they were wiped out in 1234.” (source) It is a little hard to say how many people were killed in this event. Eight thousand were killed on the field of battle, then the entire population was wiped out, supposedly. What percentage of a typical 13th century European population goes to the field of battle (when all possible arms are raised)? Half? A fourth? Let’s take those two numbers, and assume that somewhere between 25% of the population and 80% of the non-combatant population was actually killed. If 8,000 is half the population and 25% of the balance after battle were killed, than about 10,000 people died in this once incident in the early 13th century because they were considered to be witches, the entire population having been so declared by the Pope and others. If those in battle represented only 25% of the population and 80% of the balance after the battle were killed, then the number is more like 33,000 people killed as Witches in that one event.

In other words, I don’t think the number 50,000 holds up given that this one instance may have accounted for a number nearly that large.

I know people will object to this by saying that the people of Stedinger, who really were “wiped out” if this account is accurate, were killed because they were Witches. But, that is true of all the people who were killed as Witches. They were all not Witches, or nearly so, and the practice of “playing the Witch card” applied to all of them, including the people of Stedinger as well as the old lady down the street that someone found annoying. Go ahead and read this account and see if you can make an argument that this was not a systematic genocide using the assertion that everyone in Stedinger was a Witch as the impetus for doing so. ... "

[Guinevere]

I think this belongs in the Charlie Sheen thread . . .

[Big RR]

Well, Big RR, it doesn't take much to say "that's just wrong" and then produce nothing whatsoever to prove that it is wrong. Guess I'll just have to take your word for it that

Meade--at the risk of beating this dead horse again, I am not saying that nor am I asking you to believe anything. you are the one that cited language in the Koran and attributed a meaning to it that is counter to, at least, how many Islamic scholars view it. In support of your position, you offer the analysis by a group which is admittedly anti-Islamic and dedicated to exposing the "dirty truth" of islam as stated on their website. I merely said I disagreed with your position and would not accept the views of the group as valid in any way based on their "philosophical leanings" (FWIW, I wouldn't turn to an anti christian group for analysis of Christian positions, etc. either).

Now, as always, you can believe what you want, but when you want to convince someone else, it is customary to present evidence, ordinarily from and independent objective source. this you did not do, and when I called you on it you ask for proof that the analysis is wrong. If I were trying to convince you of that I might search for such evidence, but frankly I won't waste my time because your mind appears to be made up.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Th Christians have gone through their "reformation" and have left the wholesale killing of non believers in the distant past. When will Islam do the same?

[Big RR]

Not entirely oldr--we've been recent witnesses to Christian attacks on moslem enclaves and mosques in many African countries (notably the Congo) as well as India. That sort of violence is not as widespread as other sectarian violence, but it still exists.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sometimes you really baffle me. (Perhaps that's true in reverse).

Big RR says: You are the one that cited language in the Koran and attributed a meaning to it that is counter to, at least, how many Islamic scholars view it

.

Yes, I cited the Q'ran. I did not attribute meaning. That "jihad" (and the cited verses) are argued by modern Moslems as being "defensive" of the faith (and not aggressive) was noted, more than once. Here is an example of a balanced view:

Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Big RR wrote: In support of your position, you offer the analysis by a group which is admittedly anti-Islamic and dedicated to exposing the "dirty truth" of islam as stated on their website.

Please see the statement below which refutes "anti-Islamic". It is, apparently, dedicated to exposing the truth of Islam which they call "dirty" because it is glossed over.

Big RR came up with: I merely said I disagreed with your position and would not accept the views of the group as valid in any way based on their "philosophical leanings" (FWIW, I wouldn't turn to an anti christian group for analysis of Christian positions, etc. either).

I've rarely read a moral anti-intellectual argument than that. The truth of the matter does not concern you - only your view of the source. Since it is critical (highly) it must be dismissed. I regularly turn to atheist writers for analysis of Christian positions because I think they may have something useful to say.

Now, as always, you can believe what you want, but when you want to convince someone else, it is customary to present evidence, ordinarily from and independent objective source. this you did not do,

Can you name an "independent objective source" BTW? Certainly those "many Islamic scholars" that you mention with such approval are bound to be independent and objective... nichts wahr? I can't think why I didn't cite all those chaps to prove that I was wrong in the first place! So... the evidence is presented and your response is to kill the messenger.

and when I called you on it you ask for proof that the analysis is wrong. If I were trying to convince you of that I might search for such evidence, but frankly I won't waste my time because your mind appears to be made up.

Well, yes. You see, when you want to claim someone is wrong, it is customary to present evidence. But obviously your mind is made up - Islam as a religious philosophy (and this speaks not to individuals but to a worldview) is just hunky-dory.

TheReligionofPeace.com is a pluralistic, non-partisan site concerned with Islam's true political and religious teachings according to its own texts. We present the threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom, and we document the violence and dysfunction that ensues as a direct consequence of this religion's supremacist teachings.
We are not associated with any organization. We do not promote any religion, but we are not hostile to religion. We generally support the rights of atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, homosexuals, women, Muslims and anyone else on the planet to live as they wish without violating the rights of others.

We strongly condemn any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world because of their religion. Every human being is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds. (see About Muslims).

We also denounce any act of vandalism against mosques or other property, including juvenile attempts to offend Muslims by desecrating copies of the Quran. (The best way of discrediting the Quran is to tell non-Muslims what it actually says about them).

At the same time, we see no use in pretending that Islam is just another religion - which always seems to be the assumption of those preferring not to look too closely.

In fact, Islam is dreadfully unique - and it should be OK to say so.


What other religion's most devoted members videotape themselves cutting people's throats while screaming praises to their god?
What other faith has tens of thousands of terrorists across the globe united by an explicit commitment to advance the cause of their religion by pursuing horrific mass murder and mutilation?

What other religion has clerics lauded as 'moderates', 'bridge-builders', and advocates of 'peace and tolerance' who, at best cannot even bring themselves to condemn suicide bombers or denounce Islamist terror organizations, or at worst actually support terrorism, wife-beating, female genital mutilation and justify the killing of apostates and homosexuals?

What other religion kills innocent people over cartoons and teddy bears, burns poets and intellectuals alive and murders humanitarian workers of other faiths who are merely trying to help them?

What other religion actually celebrated the 9/11 attacks, described the carnage as "one of the miracles of the Quran" and proclaimed it to be "God's work against oppressors"?

What other religion childishly brags about its growth while at the same time openly denies other religions equal opportunity to evangelize - and even endorses killing those who leave?

What other religion has prominent PR organizations and charities so closely tied to terrorism - organizations like CAIR, which whine about dress codes and rubber ducks in the West while ignoring the Jihad genocide of thousands in Darfur?

What other religion has verses in its holy book that remind men of their divine permission to beat their wives and rape their slaves?

[Big RR]

Thanks for posting that additional information that Religion of Peace.com claims about itself. It certainly doesn't seem biased against islam at all.

[MajGenl.Meade]

"Anti-Islamic" and "bias" are different words. Substance at all or just more "no it isn't; no it isn't"?

I bet you believe this is OK for them to write:

We strongly condemn any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world because of their religion. Every human being is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds. (see About Muslims).

We also denounce any act of vandalism against mosques or other property, including juvenile attempts to offend Muslims by desecrating copies of the Quran.

Probably has your seal of approval, eh?

[Lord Jim]

Paris Killers 'Used Refugee Crisis To Slip In'

France's PM warns that the passport-free Schengen zone is at risk as EU ministers meet in Brussels a week after the Paris attacks.

Some of the Paris attackers exploited Europe's refugee crisis to "slip in" to France unnoticed, the country's prime minister has said.

Manuel Valls said the passport-free Schengen zone is at risk if Europe fails to "take responsibility" over border controls.

The warning comes as EU ministers meet in Brussels today where they are expected to strengthen checks on travellers at the borders of the 26-nation bloc.

Authorities say the ringleader of Friday's bombings and shootings in the French capital - which killed 129 people - managed to enter the continent unhindered.

Mr Valls said some of the Paris attackers had taken advantage of the massive influx of migrants into Europe fleeing conflict.

"These individuals took advantage of the refugee crisis ... of the chaos, perhaps, for some of them to slip in" to France, he told French TV.

"Others were in Belgium already. And others, I must remind you, were in France."

Police sources said a tip-off from Moroccan intelligence had helped track Abaaoud to the apartment building where he died.

France's Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve has called on Europe to "wake up" to the threat posed by Islamic State and take steps to ensure the safety of citizens.

"It is urgent that Europe wakes up, organises itself and defends itself against the terrorist threat," he said.

http://news.sky.com/story/1590914/paris ... to-slip-in

[Big RR]

"Anti-Islamic" and "bias" are different words. Substance at all or just more "no it isn't; no it isn't"?

I bet you believe this is OK for them to write:

We strongly condemn any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world because of their religion. Every human being is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds. (see About Muslims).

We also denounce any act of vandalism against mosques or other property, including juvenile attempts to offend Muslims by desecrating copies of the Quran.

Probably has your seal of approval, eh?

Meade--I am a big supporter of free speech, and they can post what they want. They need no seal of approval from me, or anyone else for that matter. Likewise, anyone can reach whatever conclusion they choose regarding the veracity what they post.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Of course, of course. My point is that your criteria for dismissing their analysis as false is that, quite simply, you don't like it. Whereas when they say something you do like, well you're just fine with that and all their supposed inaccuracy somehow magically vanishes.

In the meantime, any chance you can take a stab at this:

Can you name an "independent objective source" BTW? Certainly those "many Islamic scholars" that you mention with such approval are bound to be independent and objective... nichts wahr? I can't think why I didn't cite all those chaps to prove that I was wrong in the first place! So... the evidence is presented and your response is to kill the messenger.

How about this (new): when Republicans present a program or idea, we should never listen to any critique by Democrats because they are biased (and vice versa of course). We should only listen either to people who don't know what they speak of or just to the Republicans (who do know). (And vice versa, again). Oh and we also need to find someone who is totally independent and objective with no feeling for or against any particular thing.

Are you serious?

[Big RR]

My point is that your criteria for dismissing their analysis as false is that, quite simply, you don't like it.

No, I dismiss it because of the rhetoric on their site. Now, obviously, I will not dismiss everything they say--if they say New Years day is January 1, it is not false just because it comes from them, so I'm not sure what your point is.

if you choose to believe their analysis, that's your choice; I choose not to.

Frankly, there's just not much more to say.

[MajGenl.Meade]

#3 The Larch

Can you name an "independent objective source" BTW? Certainly those "many Islamic scholars" that you mention with such approval are bound to be independent and objective... nichts wahr? I can't think why I didn't cite all those chaps to prove that I was wrong in the first place!