Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Egypt's al-Sisi, Other Muslims Speak Out Against Islamic Terrorism

In wake of Charlie Hebdo massacre Muslims are speaking out against religious extremism and terrorism.

|

In his USA Today column, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit notes the Muslim pushback against religious extremism:

The most significant criticism of Islam in past weeks came not from traditional critics in Europe, but from inside the Islamic world itself, in the form of a speech, little-reported in the West, by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to Muslim clerics in Egypt. It was, as Roger Simon notes, a call for "a long overdue virtual ecclesiastical revolution in Islam."…

So it is not merely Western critics who believe that Islamic fundamentalism is damaging and endangering the place of Islam in the world, but the Muslim leader of the most populous Arab nation. Al-Sisi underscored his words by visiting a Coptic Christmas mass, something that no other Egyptian president has ever done.

Reynolds quotes from al-Sisi's speech:

"That thinking — I am not saying 'religion' but 'thinking' — that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It's antagonizing the entire world!

"Is it possible that 1.6 billion people (Muslims) should want to kill the rest of the world's inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live? Impossible! … I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution….

Whole piece here.

Related: 46 Examples of Muslim Outrage About the Paris Shooting. Sample:

The Muslim Council of Britain condemns this attack. Whomever the attackers are, and whatever the cause may be, nothing justifies the taking of life…. Dr Shuja Shafi, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain said: "Nothing justifies the taking of life. Those who have killed in the name of our religion today claim to be avenging the insults made against Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace. But nothing is more immoral, offensive and insulting against our beloved Prophet than such a callous act of murder.  Our thoughts, prayers and solidarity go to  the families of the victims and the people of France."

Advertisement

NEXT: NYPD Brass to Rank and File: Start Writing More Summonses Or Else

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I want to hear it acknowledged (and maybe they have) that there can be no expectation that those who don’t subscribe to their faith be forced nonetheless to follow its supposed tenets.

    1. 32% of Muslims in America believe that Sharia should be the supreme law of the land.

      http://www.andrewbostom.org/bl…..xpression/

      http://www.answeringmuslims.co…..lieve.html

      1. And what do you want us to do about that?

        1. ON HEARING THE FIRST ALLAHU AKBAR:

          1. PROCEED TO THE NEAREST BUILDING.

          2. STAY AWAY FROM LOOSE OBJECTS, AND DROP ALL GLASSES, BOOKS ETC. IN
          YOUR HANDS.

          3. REMOVE SHARP OBJECTS, SUCH AS PENCILS AND KEYS, FROM YOUR POCKETS.

          4. LOOSEN YOUR NECKTIE, UNBUTTON YOUR COAT AND REMOVE RESTRICTIVE
          ARTICLES OF CLOTHING.

          5. REMOVE EYEGLASSES, EARRINGS, WATCHES AND OTHER JEWELRY.

          6. BEND OVER AND PLACE YOUR HEAD FIRMLY BETWEEN YOUR LEGS.

          7. THEN KISS YOUR ASS GOODBYE.

        2. Clearly, I was responding to FoE’s comment about popular sentiments. But what can you personally do… take your Islam apologia with you on a trip to Waziristan never to be heard from again. That’d be a step in the right direction.

          1. Failure to collectivize responsibility=Islam aplogia!

            1. Failure to recognize Islamic ideology for what it is= Islam apologia.

              1. Except for the little fact that many Muslims seem to read that ideology very differently, yet we must lump them into it too I guess.

                1. Among all those varying interpretations, large proportions and even majorities of them agree on points like ‘death to apostates’ et cetera. That’s a large fact for the record.

            2. Thirty-two percent is now considered a supermajority, it seems.

              1. 32% being considered a tiny fraction of a fraction of outliers, is the actual issue. Not imply that you care what the actual issue is.

        3. It may well be that there’s nothing that can be done, or is worth doing, about that. But, pretending that the world is something that it is not, probably tops the list of things not to do.

          1. I could not agree more. Whatever the solution may be, the first step is to stop peddling lies and to stop believing lies.

      2. To be fair, I bet 60% of Americans in general reject freedom of expression.

        If people are actually saying that Sharia ought to be the law of the land, that’s pretty fucked. If people want to voluntarily subject themselves to Sharia, that’s none of my business.

        I’m not sure how much I trust a poll commissioned by WND or done by a company with “Strategies” in its name.

        1. It’s not like they’re the only ones whose polling data finds high levels of support for Islamic extremism among Muslim populations. But I’m sure you can assassinate the integrity of every single polling entity that ever found such.

          1. All polls are suspect, and more and more so as people are less attached to land line telephones.

            Still, I’m not saying it’s definitely not true. I have no idea. I’m often surprised by how awful people can be. I’m just no going to make up my mind based on some 2 year old polls done by ideologically motivated groups.

            1. I’m not claiming the polls are the word of god, for the record. But they do offer a glimpse of the true scale of such beliefs in those societies.

            2. It seems to be the case that the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries will happily vote themselves Sharia law systems. Most Muslim countries criminalize proselytizing and public displays on the part of rival religions, and circumscribe the rights of those who are not part of the majority faith.

              The ones that don’t are, by and large, are secular authoritarian dictatorships acting in defiance of their own people’s will.

      3. You’re completely misreprenting the polls but whatever.

        How many Christians in America believe the Bible should be the supreme law of the land?

        1. What percent of Christians in America would bring death onto apostates? What % of Americans support the murder of civilians for the attainment of religious goals?

        2. “For example, six-in-ten white evangelical Protestants say that the Bible should be the guiding principle in making laws when it conflicts with the will of the people, ”

          http://www.pewforum.org/2006/0…..-politics/

            1. I thought you were talking about how we can draw general conclusions about religious groups in the US based on the beliefs of many of them? Don’t you keep trumpeting the significant minority of American muslims who in a poll backed Sharia law? Well, here we have a majority of evangelicals endorsing Biblical law.

              1. Do you think I’m an evangelical or something? Why not disprove the existence of problems inherent within Islam by posting some polls about what Buddhists believe? That should do the trick.

      4. “Free Society|1.12.15 @ 11:21AM|#

        32% of Muslims in America believe that Sharia should be the supreme law of the land.”

        – 46% of Americans Overall believe in Creationism

        – 45% of Americans think Lee Harvey Oswald had help

        – 26% think 9/11 was planned by the US Government

        – 4% believe the world is controlled by Lizard People

        Of course that last one is entirely false.
        (munches on dried flies)

        1. Aside from the creationism, the others aren’t that crazy or certainly not as alarming as the 80 some percent of Egyptians supporting death for apostates. Condemning Christianity doesn’t do anything increase the legitimacy of the Islamic belief system. Virtually all religions are highly irrational but since ideas are not created equal, some are demonstrably worse than others and posting polls about crazy Buddhist beliefs won’t detract from that either.

    2. Warning, look out below: Bo’s in full pedantic strawman mode

  2. I’m sure this won’t placate the “NUKE MECCA” crowd.

    1. Will anything?

      And some of them are the same people who complain when progtards want to use the latest school shooting as an excuse to violate our Second Amendment rights.

      Once chicken little gets rolling…

      Watching the fear mongers, too, it’s always intersting how they spend so much time talking about how dangerous Muslims and their ideology are–and almost no time talking about what we should do.

      What do they want to do?

      Nuke Mecca?

      Invade however many countries?

      Start deporting Muslims?

      Amend the Constitution so the First Amendment doesn’t protect Islam?

      The progtards want us to ban “assault weapons” every time there’s a school shooting. What is it that the Islamophobes want us to do about their fear?

      1. Invade however many countries?

        I think a lot of them would support something along those lines, which is especially idiotic considering that that’s a recipe for radicalizing people. It turns out that people really resent having their family and friends blown up. Who knew?

      2. “Watching the fear mongers, too, it’s always intersting how they spend so much time talking about how dangerous Muslims and their ideology are–and almost no time talking about what we should do.”

        I absolutely know what should be done about it.

        1. Limit Muslim immigration into Europe. My apologies if this makes me insufficiently libertarian, but it seems to me that when little girls in Sweden are having their genitals mutilated, ISIS flags are flying of tower blocks in London, and newspapers are being firebombed for failure to show due deference to Mohammad, Islam is as great a threat to individual liberty as the state.

        2. Scale back welfare programs substantially. One of the primary driving factors of Islamic radicalism is the fact that you’ve got Muslim ghettos with 50% unemployment where virtually everyone is on state assistance. This limits integration into society and creates a vast, youthful underclass that does nothing but stew in its own juices all day long, slowly radicalizing for no other purpose than to break up the monotony.

        And neither of those things require invasions or nuking Mecca.

        1. “My apologies if this makes me insufficiently libertarian”

          Apologies accepted. Though I do like your second idea.

        2. How about this (which is also the ‘OMWC Plan for Mexican Immigration in the US’)?

          1. Open up Muslim immigration into Europe.

          2. Scale back welfare programs as fully as possible.

          1. The problem is that it’s not a legitimate possibility. We’re confined by what the Europeans will actually do, and scaling back welfare isn’t on the table.

            1. If we’re confined to what Europeans will actually do, what makes you think they are going to restrict immigration based on religion or national origin?

              1. The frequency of mass murder.

                1. If bankruptcy isn’t going to get them to rethink their welfare policies I doubt occasional shootings will get them to rethink immigration policy in the way you mention.

            2. The problem is that it’s not a legitimate possibility

              Neither is your suggestion. Any sensible plan will not be a legitimate possibility.

            3. It will be if the US pulls out all our troops.

        3. 1. Limit Muslim immigration into Europe. My apologies if this makes me insufficiently libertarian, but it seems to me that when little girls in Sweden are having their genitals mutilated, ISIS flags are flying of tower blocks in London, and newspapers are being firebombed for failure to show due deference to Mohammad, Islam is as great a threat to individual liberty as the state.

          When large proportions of those immigrants are carriers of a disease that induces them to support murder, it seems pretty reasonable to limit that groups’ access and admit immigrants from those countries on a case-by-case basis.

          2. Scale back welfare programs substantially.

          This. And I’ll add number 3, which is to relegalize freedom of association and allow society, without the force of law, to discriminate or not discriminate in their economic exchanges. If you need laws to force multiculturalism down the public’s throat, then it stands to reason that that brand of multiculturalism may not be a net benefit to society.

          1. “carriers of a disease that induces them to support murder”

            Like something right out of Mein Kampf…

            1. “the discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world…How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus!”-You know who.

              1. Nice reduction there, Bo.

                1. I didn’t have to ‘reduce’ anything, you actually used the same language!

                    1. Now there’s some obfuscation…

                    2. You’re the expert on that practice so I’ll defer to you.

                    3. Come on, FS, you literally used the same language about Islam as Hitler used about Judaism. The remarkable thing is only that no one else has called you out on it.

                    4. As I recall Hitler considered Jewish blood a disease. I’m regarding an ideology as a disease. Other people might not as quickly lept at the chance to call me Hitler probably because you yourself suffer from certain ideological ailments that make you predisposed to saying dumb shit.

                    5. Hitler was also a big fan of highways as I recall. If you support highways, you’re Hitler 2.0

                    6. Also pathetic, we’re not talking some belief of Hitler that was unrelated to what the world abhors about him, we’re talking about rhetoric about entire groups as a ‘disease.’

                    7. I made an analogy that you said is similar to an analogy that Hitler made. That connection alone you say is enough to brand me a Nazi. So anytime anyone refers to a set of ideas as a disease, that’s flagrant Nazism?

                    8. Good grief. When people do what Hitler did in condemning an entire religious group as a disease then yes that’s Hitler-esque.

                    9. Hitler’s perceptions about groups of people were almost wholly rooted in his racist beliefs. You may be surprised to learn Christians of Jewish descent or ethnicity enjoyed the same level of hospitality in Auschwitz.

                      There’s nothing racist about criticizing adherents of a certain set of beliefs. Or is there?

                    10. Would the Holocaust have been fine if Hitler only opposed the Jewish religion? There’s no way to spin your language to not make it sound Nazi-esque. Also, considering you’re lumping in people who don’t have this “disease” with those who do, and that people would be lumped in merely for being born in a Muslim country, I’m not sure how you can see you’re just judging people off their beliefs.

                      Furthermore, good luck to you when leftists find libertarianism and conservatism to “diseases.” I’m sure that would never happen, right?

                    11. *be

        4. And stop pretending that multiculturalism is a workable or good idea. Melting pot, not ghettos.

          As a cosmopolitan, open borders type, I think that migration and mixing of cultures is a good thing. Where it goes wrong is in encouraging newcomers to hold onto their original cultures, including the awful, backwards parts, and making it too easy for people to avoid assimilating into the broader culture.

          1. As long as people respect basic rights I think they’re welcome to engage in whatever cultural practices they want. I think we actually benefit from that. I don’t want every immigrant over here to only eat ‘American’ food and play ‘American’ music, I’m glad that so many have ‘kept their cultures’ in areas like that making my own tastes better served.

            1. Yeah, sure. People should do what they want. I don’t mean that all immigrants should just assimilate into the pre-existing dominant culture. What I don’t like is the ghettoization that seems to be far more prevalent in Muslim immigrant communities in Europe than in the US. And I think that a lot of that is because multiculturalism is held as some sort of ideal when a blending of cultures is more desirable.

              1. I’d bet that the choice of where to live has more to do with how one is doing economically and when one entered the country, and given France heavily regulates the housing market and the economy leading to high unemployment that probably has more to do with that than some multicultural ideal.

              2. And I think that a lot of that is because multiculturalism is held as some sort of ideal when a blending of cultures is more desirable.

                I think it’s more because Europe is just a lot more racist than the US. And class-ist too.

          2. As a cosmopolitan, open borders type, I think that migration and mixing of cultures is a good thing.

            That’d be great if a) the welfare state were non-existant and b) if the mixing of cultures occurs naturally and without policy preference. That also means also re-legalizing freedom of association. Open borders without freedom of association is colonialism.

            1. Up until the last sentence I agree wholeheartedly with what you say here.

              1. Up until the last sentence I agree wholeheartedly with what you say here.

                You just agreed with Hitler because I once referenced Islamic ideology as a disease. You’re such a Nazi, Bo.

                1. That’s pretty pathetic, the ‘here’ meant the comment I was directly replying to, not your Nazi-esque diatribes.

                  1. More than one diatribe now? What else did I take straight from the pages of Mein Kampf?

                    1. In more than one post you’ve made the disease reference. You’re being pathetic here. Just admit it was a stupid hyperbolic term to use.

                    2. Yeah you calling me names really drives home the point, Bo.

                      I’ve got nothing to admit to you. Islam is an ideological disease, like communism or a whole host of other ideological pathogens that seizes upon one’s emotions and uses confirmation bias to eliminate the person’s ability to use reason beyond the most rudimentary functions. It doesn’t manifest the same in everyone and indeed Muslim populations in places like Kyrgyzstan and Bosnia, where Islamism has little legitimacy, have become relatively immune the worst ravages of the disease compared to what we see in the Middle-east. Islam’s main problem is the tendency towards Islamism. That tendency comes preloaded in the culture.

            2. Yeah, obviously I want all of that. I am fortunate not to be in a position where I have to make all of the decisions, so I get to just say how I think things should be.

            3. if the mixing of cultures occurs naturally and without policy preference.

              Generally, it does. Cultural separatism is an expensive proposition. If no one else is picking up the tab (“the welfare state were non-existant”), the economic incentives are to adopt the wider culture, retaining only that which is still valuable or useful in the context of that culture.

              1. Correct, but if personal discrimination is verboten and protected classes are created by legal fiat, you are subsidizing the existence of less valuable and even undesirable cultural norms.

          3. Melting pot

            How about a chunky stew? Beef remains beef, potatoes remain potatoes, carrots remain carrots, but each releases a bit of its flavor and mixes it with the others, creating something richer and more delicious than any individual ingredient, while the unctuous broth of liberty permeates all.

      3. I’m not personally in the ‘Nuke Mecca’ crowd, but there is a response I’d like to see. And it doesn’t come from Muslims themselves: I want Westerners in general to overwhelmingly reject any excuses for the murders and rally behind the magazine in support of their rights (which, to some extent has happened, but there’s been a lot of apologia thrown in there). The response to someone mocking Muhammad should not be platitudes about Islamophobia, it should be a recognition that free speech trumps any notion of religious blasphemy. If anyone of an Islamic persuasion claims that a satire or criticism is an insult to their religion, the response should be “Too bad. You live in a society where people do not share the same religious beliefs as you and are free to mock or complain about it in any way they see fit.”

        A strong culture, confident in its ideals, would not be throwing out qualifiers in an attempt to justify an act of barbarism that undermines one of its supposed fundamental rights.

        1. That should be the response. It does the world and Muslims in particular no good to act otherwise. The worst thing we can do is what most of the mass media is doing. They have long since declared Muslims a special victim group worthy of respect and protection that other religions, particularly Christians and Jews, don’t get. So while the editor of the New York Times talks about how he can’t publish these cartoons because “he cares about that Muslim family in Brooklyn who is offended”, he puts the artist who did piss Christ on the payroll.

          All that sort of cowardice and self loathing does is encourage Muslims to believe that they are special and outside of the rules that everyone else follows. We have a problem in that some percentage of Muslims living in the West think that it is okay to jail or murder anyone who insults their religion. I fail to see how telling them “yes you are special and your religion is worthy of protection from criticism that we would never give anyone else” is doing anything but making that problem worse.

          1. Popular support for speech and press freedoms is, unfortunately, feckless. In general, people support such freedoms when it is convenient, or least not too uncomfortable.

            Lindsey Graham, who has thrown his hat in the ring, illustrated this quite well: “I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” He didn’t like burning Korans.

            Back in 2012, the LA Times argued in an op=ed that “Innocence of the Muslims” does not meet the free-speech test. Charlie Hebdo was no less offensive, and had infinitely broader distribution.

            Regarding Charlie Hebdo, Obama’s press flak, Jay Carney: “Obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.”

            But give the guy his due: Carney did add, “But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution.”

            On the other hand, there is not a college administration in the US that would have allowed an English-language version of Charlie Hebdo to be distributed on campus. It would have been instantly shut down as hate speech.

        2. “I want Westerners in general to overwhelmingly reject any excuses for the murders and rally behind the magazine in support of their rights”

          +1!

        3. “The response to someone mocking Muhammad should not be platitudes about Islamophobia, it should be a recognition that free speech trumps any notion of religious blasphemy.”

          Platitudes about Islamophobia was not my response to someone mocking Muhammad.

          My “platitudes about Islamophobia” are a reaction to Islamophobia.

          You may find people–in this very thread–who think that Islam is inherently a violent threat and who perceive the presence of Muslims as a threat to their well-being.

          1. It is inherently violent and in all likelihood it’s not a threat to me personally but alas I don’t know who the next victims of this ideology will be. It’s a threat to the peaceful continuation of society which I’m also allowed to care about last I checked.

            1. “It is inherently violent and in all likelihood it’s not a threat to me personally but alas I don’t know who the next victims of this ideology will be. It’s a threat to the peaceful continuation of society”

              And I’m supposed to believe that all you want to do about that is change American attitudes?

              1. I assume you’ve already drawn up a lists of things I want to do, all of which contrary to my actual statements where I’ve repeatedly told you that I want people to recognize it’s not a tiny minority of extremists within Islam. How is Islam supposed to reform itself without any acknowledgement of how big it’s problems really are?

            2. I agree that there is an inherent violence to Islam. I’m no fan of religion in general, but I’d say it’s the worst of the major world religions.

              That said, there aren’t victims of ideologies. Just of acts by holders of the ideology.

              1. Kulaks were destined for death as soon as Bolshevist ideas became legitimate in the eyes of society. I’m not literally claiming an idea be put on trial but is it not fair to say that you can chalk up millions of 20th century deaths to the spread of communism, for example?

          2. I wasn’t referring specifically to your arguments, more the general claims that constantly popped up about how the magazine was ‘racist’ or Islamophobic for directly mocking or criticizing parts of their theology. Also statements by political leaders that show absurd favouritism towards Islam (“The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”, etc.).

            Basically, if your argument is ‘I support free speech but…*insert argument about people’s feelings being hurt here*‘ you’re part of the problem.

          3. You may find people–in this very thread–who think that Islam is inherently a violent threat and who perceive the presence of Muslims as a threat to their well-being.

            And you’ll probably find even more people –in this very thread–who think that Islam is unusually open to an authoritarian or coercive interpretation and thus has an unusually large number of adherents who pose a concern for people in a free society. But, don’t let complexity get in the way of a good bit of moral posturing.

        4. A strong culture, confident in its ideals, would not be throwing out qualifiers in an attempt to justify an act of barbarism that undermines one of its supposed fundamental rights.

          Well said.

        5. Careful here. Our resident apologist for Islam, Ken Shultz (or is it Dr. Ken Shultz?), will diagnose you with paranoia real quick.

          The snark aside, I agree with you that this is the best course of action. Unfortunately, I don’t expect it to happen. Most people in the West do not think that free speech always trumps religious blasphemy. Yours (and mine) is an unpopular position, sooner or later even liberal- or libertarian-leaning people discover some kind of speech that is so blasphemous that it cannot be defended.

          1. If I’m an apologist for anything, here, it’s the First Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.

            I suppose I’m also an apologist for not engaging in stupid wars.

            …all of this despite the cowardly fearmongers, for sure.

            1. This is where Ken accuses everyone not in agreement with him of being in favor of some type of some kind of crusaderism foreign policy objectives.

              1. If you think the suggestion that there are Americans out there who want a war against Islam is a straw man, then you’re being willfully obtuse.

                This guy wants us to invade Saudi Arabia:

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/01…..nt_5014618

                1. If you think the suggestion that there are Americans out there who want a war against Islam is a straw man, then you’re being willfully obtuse

                  No just not everyone who views Islam as a blight on humanity lives in that pro-war camp.

  3. Didn’t happen. John has loudly proclaimed that every single Mooslem is a terrorist. So Mooslems publicly denouncing terrorism is just impossible. So this didn’t happen. Nothing to see. Move along.

  4. There seems to be a strong correlation between Islam itself and extremist religious views.

    Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified
    http://pewresearch.org/assets/…..df#page=60

    And since this article heavily features Egypt it’s worth mentioning that 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans and 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam. Their problems are cultural and until they are addressed, western countries treat members of these societies as members of the civilized world at their own peril.

    http://www.worldpublicopinion……09_rpt.pdf

    pewglobal.org /2010/12/02/ muslims-around-the- world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

    1. And what do you want us to do about that?

      1. Well, we could stop lying to ourselves about the inherent cultural problems that exist even within moderate Islam.

        I said this yesterday. There are literally millions of Muslims who are referred to as ‘moderates’ but express and hold views that would get members of any other religion declared a radical extremist. A female Dutch Islamic politician, who is about as integrated into Dutch culture as it’s possible to be, declared that ISIS was a Zionist plot to discredit Islam. Over 60% of French Muslims agreed with the idea that French Jews (who are only like .5% of the population) have too much power.

        These are views no Christian could hold while still claiming to be a moderate, but we grade Islam based on the idea that extremism=suicide bombings and anything less than that allows you to declare yourself a moderate.

        1. The intent of the fear mongering I’m seeing doesn’t seem to be intended to change Muslim minds about their own attitudes.

          And, honestly, I don’t really care about what people think. I care about what they do. Still, if there are Muslim politicians who are trying to convince other Muslims that ISIS is so pathetic, it’s like a plot to discredit Islam–then (apart from being antisemitic), what’s wrong with that?

          ISIS is bad because of what they do, right? And good Christians can and do agree that ISIS makes Islam look bad, don’t they? Because of what they do.

          I suspect there is a sizable portion of the America population who thinks that Jews have too much power, too. How many times have you seen other commenters whining about AIPAC, etc.?

          You want to criticize terrorists and their violence, go right ahead. But the problem is the violence. Free speech means, among other things, that you can think what you want–no matter how stupid. The problem is the violence, and projecting violence onto a group of 1.5 billion people–who have not committed violence in the name of Islam–is inaccurate.

          You’re probably more likely to be bitten by a shark than attacked by a Muslim.

        2. “Moderate” is a relative term. Problem is people assuming that it means “reasonable”.

          A female Dutch Islamic politician, who is about as integrated into Dutch culture as it’s possible to be, declared that ISIS was a Zionist plot to discredit Islam.

          Well, she’s definitely part of the European mainstream, then.

      2. Recognize it and stop lying about the tiny minority of religious extremists in existence.

  5. Nonetheless, one can probably hear O’Reilly and Hannity proclaiming on their shows tonite that “When will moderate Muslims speak out against the radicals?”

    1. Incidentally, a Christian robbed the gas station down the street last night–and I haven’t denounced anybody for it.

      Actually, I stopped paying attention to the story almost as soon as I heard about it.

      It didn’t have anything to do with me. I’ve got other things to do.

      1. If Christians don’t work to stop this kind of thing then they’re all responsible!

        1. NUKE NAZARETH!

          1. We just need to stop the immigration of all these Christians.

            1. That way the Islamist’s genocide of those populations can continue unabated, eh Bo?

      2. Did he declare “This is in praise of Jesus!” while he was doing it?

        1. Maybe he was just following Matthew 6?

      3. Incidentally, a Christian robbed the gas station down the street last night–and I haven’t denounced anybody for it.

        And they did it in the name of Christianity?

  6. Obviously most Muslims are not in favor of violence. However, ‘moderate’ Muslims have been awfully quick to use the state in order to silence opponents through hate speech laws in pretty much every country where they’re given that options. This includes law suits leveled in France against Charlie Hebdo.

    When you intimate that it’s justifiable to use state power to stifle blasphemous speech, it’s only a few quick jumps before whackos decide that speech which deserves to be stifled can be stifled through other means.

    Probably the apex of this sort of idiocy came when a Muslim Council of Britain spokesman went on T.V. and denounced homosexuality as a disease and a perversion, so gay rights groups sued him for hate speech. Then, a member of a gay rights group referred to Islam as a ‘canker’ that is deeply homophobic, and was immediately investigated by Scotland Yard for ‘Islamophobia.’

    So a Muslim and a gay man both accurately stated that the Koran is anti-gay and were subsequently punished by the state for telling the truth. If either of them had resisted the state encroachment on their free speech rights, they would have been beaten and potentially shot.

    In other words, western countries believe in shooting people for exercising their free speech rights, they’re just a bit more bureaucratic. This isn’t an instance where moderates and extremists are disagreeing over whether it’s okay to shoot people, they’re just quibbling over methodology.

    1. “However, ‘moderate’ Muslims have been awfully quick to use the state in order to silence opponents through hate speech laws in pretty much every country where they’re given that options.”

      This is true of just about every population in the world. Most places have hate speech type laws. It seems a majority of Democrats here even support them.

      1. And I hate Democrats too. Saying ‘Well, Muslims are only as anti-speech as the Democrats’ isn’t exactly going to sway me on that point.

        1. My point is that not supporting freedom of speech is not some exclusive Muslim thing. I’d bet if you polled mostly Catholic South American countries you’d get disappointingly low levels of support too.

      2. This is true of just about every population in the world. Most places have hate speech type laws. It seems a majority of Democrats here even support them

        Well, since most Democrats are authoritarian proglodytes, that makes sense.

    2. “When you intimate that it’s justifiable to use state power to stifle blasphemous speech, it’s only a few quick jumps before whackos decide that speech which deserves to be stifled can be stifled through other means.”

      Peaceful protest is a gateway drug?

      The line between peaceful protest and using the courts is bright and clear to libertarians, but most people (especially in France) are not libertarians. And convincing Muslims that society won’t tolerate peaceful protests against those who are purposely offending them isn’t the answer.

      There’s no problem with peaceful protest, and, yeah, using the government to try to silence people is wrong. Still, it’s the violence that’s the issue. That’s the line that needs to be highlighted–and 99.99 percent of the Muslims out there do not use violence to silence speech against Muslims or their Prophet.

      1. “The line between peaceful protest and using the courts is bright and clear to libertarians, but most people (especially in France) are not libertarians. And convincing Muslims that society won’t tolerate peaceful protests against those who are purposely offending them isn’t the answer.”

        That’s weird. Nowhere in my original post did I mention peaceful protests. I mentioned the use of government force to police blasphemers and apostates, which is not exactly a peaceful protest under any accepted definition of the term.

        That’s why my original post has the word ‘state power’ contained in it, which you chose to gloss over as you were gleefully burning strawmen.

        “and 99.99 percent of the Muslims out there do not use violence to silence speech against Muslims or their Prophet.”

        No, they just use threats of state violence to do it. I was under the impression libertarians opposed that sort of thing.

        1. Given your handle, are you aware that Ireland has a blasphemy law?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B…..n_Act_2009

          1. Nice obfuscation there, Bo.

            1. Really? I could have sworn Irish was talking about “the use of government force to police blasphemers…”

              1. An Irish blasphemy law has what to do with the overwhelming Islamic inclinations for said laws?

                1. You really can’t connect the dots there?

        2. “Nowhere in my original post did I mention peaceful protests. I mentioned the use of government force to police blasphemers and apostates, which is not exactly a peaceful protest under any accepted definition of the term.”

          I agree with you that government coercion is a type of violence.

          Terrorist attacks are violence itself.

          There is a distinction to be made between people who will use government coercion but not terrorism.

          I don’t know how many Muslims joined in the lawsuit to stop Charlie from publishing cartoons about Muslims; I suspect like most people in France, most Muslims just go about their business every day and never sue anybody.

          Regardless, I know that 99.99 percent of the Muslims out there did not engage in violence against Charlie, and lumping all those Muslims in with the terrorists because other, non-terrorist Muslims tried to get the government to censor Charlie is just factually incorrect.

      2. That’s the line that needs to be highlighted–and 99.99 percent of the Muslims out there do not use violence to silence speech against Muslims or their Prophet.

        Quit lying, Ken. Your claims have been demonstrated as false repeatedly. I guess I have to do it again. 58% of Muslim-Americans believe criticism of Islam or Muhammad is not protected free speech under the First Amendment.
        45% believe mockers of Islam should face criminal charges (38% said they should not).
        12% of Muslim-Americans believe blaspheming Islam should be punishable by death.
        43% of Muslim-Americans believe people of other faiths have no right to evangelize Muslims.
        32% of Muslims in America believe that Sharia should be the supreme law of the land.
        http://www.andrewbostom.org/bl…..xpression/
        http://www.answeringmuslims.co…..lieve.html

        Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
        86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
        30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
        76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
        51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

        That 0.01 threshold of yours must be pretty damn crowded. Support for the violent actions of others is no less deadly as it fuels the continued activities of that tiny minority of violent Muslims.

        1. Most Blacks in the US favor hate speech laws, so what conclusion should we draw from that?

          1. That they’re routinely lied to and duped by progressives like yourself. Tell me Bo, is ‘Islam’ a race? I ask because your comparison seems imply you believe that to be the case.

            1. No, my comparison is about ‘groups.’ You want to say that a lot of Muslims think X so all Muslims are suspect, and I’m just showing that the same can be said about other American groups.

              1. The concept of ‘groups’? That’s what so offends you? Let’s do analogy with your favorite people to make analogies with.

                When a lot of Nazis think Jews should be murdered, is it fair that all self described Nazis would be suspect of similar beliefs?

                Is it at least reasonable to acknowledge that a Nazi is more likely to believe in the righteousness of murdering Jews than people outside of that ideological ‘group’ are? If so, how much more likely? If they were a tiny fraction I could agree that Nazism is not overtly murderous in that regards. If they were a large minority or even a majority in some places, I’d have to conclude that Nazi ideology is playing a role in forming those beliefs.

        2. I don’t care what’s in other peopel’s minds so much as I care about what other people do, and lumping people in with violent terrorists because of what they believe–rather than what they do–is simply poor thinking.

          How many Americans think that abortion doctors should face murder charges or maybe even the death penalty?

          If millions of American think that, now how frightened are you of your fellow Americans?

          I’d say that if you’re any more frightened of your fellow Americans than you were before–then your thinking on that issue is highly irrational.

        3. “12% of Muslim-Americans believe blaspheming Islam should be punishable by death.”

          Are we still supposed to think that all you want to do about this is raise awareness in the American people?

          P.S. Are you LoneWacko?

          1. Are we still supposed to think that all you want to do about this is raise awareness in the American people?

            It’s pretty telling that you are incapable of arguing against my arguments and you instead attack strawman arguments that you keep insisting belong to me.

            1. Asking a couple of pointed questions does not a straw man make.

              1) Do you really just want to raise awareness of your Muslim menace, or do you want to do something in policy?

              2) Are you LoneWacko?

              There’s not a straw man in sight!

              1. Asking a couple of pointed questions does not a straw man make.

                You aren’t simply asking a question when you repeatedly state that I propose we invade Muslim countries. That’s a huge leap to say the least. And a strawman when you engage in argument against invading Muslim countries as though that were my position.

                As I have repeatedly told you, I want people to understand that Islamic extremists are not a tiny minority of Muslims. As for policy as I have also repeatedly said, legalize freedom of association and open the borders all you want. But in the absence of free association, admit Islamic immigrants on a case-by-case basis bearing in mind that the extremists are a large proportion of those populations.

    3. Obviously most Muslims are not in favor of violence. However, ‘moderate’ Muslims have been awfully quick to use the state in order to silence opponents…

      Which is it? If they want to use the state to silence opponents, then they are in favor of violence with the state acting in their stead.

      The success of Muslim agitators in using the state is far more dangerous to press and speech liberties than acts of terrorism.

      You can easily find the offensive Charlie Hebdo material on the web. Compare that with the difficulty of finding Innocence of the Muslims.

  7. But John didn’t see any people that ‘seemed’ Muslim in that Daily Mail story covering a demonstration against the attacks a few days ago, so surely that trumps all this.

    1. Nice straw man. I said, I hadn’t seen it and if there was evidence produce. This is evidence and I am happy to see it.

      This is exactly what I was saying needs to happen. Only Muslims can reform Islam. It does no good for those outside the faith to demand reforms. And since only they can do it, Muslims bear the responsibility of reforming it.

      In contrast, I would assume you find this appalling. You are the one who claims that Muslims bear no responsibility for what is done in the name of their religion. So, you must be pretty sad to see Muslims standing up and acting otherwise. Didn’t these people get the memo that what happened in Paris has nothing to do with them?

      1. You didn’t draw any conclusions from not seeing any, and then tell me it was on others to produce pictures of them to rebut that?

        And your last paragraph is almost as hilarious.

        1. I said, I haven’t seen it and if there is evidence it is going on, show it to me. You of course had none.

          Now that there is, I am very heartened by it. But again, these people seem to agree with me. They seem to understand that when people are out murdering people in the name of their religion, they have a responsibility to stand up and do something about it.

          According to you, they have no duty to do that and should feel no need to do or say anything. They didn’t pull the trigger, so why does it concern them? You need to get out and tell these people how wrong this is. They are just accepting collective responsibility here. This must be stopped, right?

          1. Actually, I mentioned the kind of things this OP highlights. But you said that there were no people in the pictures in that one story and then launched into one of your ‘why, oh why is the Muslim community not against this?’ based on that crazy premise.

            And while I don’t think members of any group are under an obligation to condemn the acts of others in that group, that doesn’t mean I don’t find encouraging when anyone does condemn awful acts.

            1. Yes I did. And you said they are. And I said “if so, show me”. And like every other claim you pull out of your ass, you had no evidence. I always said if they were, good for the ones who are because this is their fight more than ours.

              1. “you had no evidence”

                John, you really struggle with basic logic.

                You made a claim based on a few pictures from one story in a magazine about one demonstration, a claim about Muslims in general. That’s a crazy claim, I don’t need counter evidence to undercut that claim, it’s a logical nightmare in and of itself. And I, and some others actually, did mention that the mainstream press was widely covering these kinds of denunciations by Muslim groups, clerics, etc. Should we dig up the link of the conversation?

                1. John, you really struggle with basic logic.

                  No. You have no grasp of it at all. Seriously none. You are just not very bright. There is noting illogical about saying “I won’t believe this is true until I see some evidence of it”, which is what I said.

                  You were asked to prove a positive and provide the evidence. I was the one asking to prove a negative.

                  I am sorry Bo, you just are not very smart. You think you are, but you just aren’t. And I am not really sure how one goes about arguing with you on a level that you understand. If you can’t grasp something as simple as “if that is the case, show me evidence of it”, then I am not sure what you could understand.

  8. Speaking out is a long way from cooperating with international groups and governments to eradicate radicals, cells and terrorist groups. Start with Hezbollah and work your way out.

  9. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  10. We need a final solution to this Muslim problem, eh? AmIright?

    1. Diseases must be eradicated!

      1. Diseases of ideology, diseases of culture, yeah. Ideas aren’t people, they aren’t created equal or deserving of respect prima facie.

        1. There was this guy who talked about eliminating the ‘disease’ of the Jews too.

        2. Yes, ideas aren’t people. Conversely, people aren’t ideas.

          And you still think the right way to fight an idea is to deny freedom of association among people?

          1. We need to actually legalize our freedom of association. Once we have that, throw open the borders far and wide I don’t care. Allow society to sort out desirable from undesirable.

    2. Maybe Muslim Americans should be collected and concentrated into some safe place where we can keep an eye on them.

      Didn’t we do something like that to Japanese-Americans during World War II? How did that work out, anyway?

  11. It seems like you almost always get some of the prominent Islamic scholars in western countries and some leaders in countries like Egypt condemning these things. But the Pew surveys that Free Society linked to are kind of eye-opening for me. In the west, majorities of Muslims seem to be truly moderate, but there are sizable minorities that aren’t. And in most of the predominantly Muslim world, the numbers are flipped. So some of the leadership speaking out is a good start, but things aren’t going to change until the rank and file start to truly embrace a moderate view.

    1. Having said that, I think closing down immigration is reactionary. It bears repeating that the Paris gunmen were born in France. It seems to be a popular assumption that if, say, 75% of Muslim country X is sympathetic to extremists, that 75% of immigrants from that country will be as well. But that is faulty logic unless those immigrants are on a mission to uproot themselves and their families and leave countries where like-minded people hold power, so that they can infiltrate and change Europe, or they are being exported against their will by their home countries. Rather, I suspect most immigrants have more moderate views, or at least are willing to live peacefully, but either they or their children find their new homes to be less than welcoming and then turn towards more radical thinking.

      1. I think closing down immigration is reactionary. It bears repeating that the Paris gunmen were born in France. It seems to be a popular assumption that if, say, 75% of Muslim country X is sympathetic to extremists, that 75% of immigrants from that country will be as well. But that is faulty logic unless those immigrants are on a mission to uproot themselves and their families and leave countries where like-minded people hold power, so that they can infiltrate and change Europe, or they are being exported against their will by their home countries

        a) Why is it “reactionary” to close down or limit immigration, and if it is why is that a bad thing? It is also “reactionary” to allow as many with the views linked above to immigrate as the market/welfare system will bear, regardless of how they vote or disrupt superior liberal cultural norms?

        b) No conspiracy is necessary. Muslims, like most other people, immigrate largely for economic opportunity. Moroccan immigration to Spain, for example, is mostly driven by better welfare and work opportunities for poor Moroccans in their northern neighbor, ditto Algerians in France. Germans are less generous with their welfare benefits for immigrants (which partly explains why their Turkish population is better-behaved than the Algerian and Moroccan populations), but Turks largely emigrated to Germany as a result of a work visa program to Germany started in the 80s.

      2. It bears repeating that the Paris gunmen were born in France.

        France doesn’t consider such people “French” – why should they?

  12. Has anyone considered another downside to the ‘blame Islam itself’ reaction, namely that that is likely exactly the kind of reaction the radicals would love to see? Just as al Qaida hoped the US reaction to 9/11 would be to wage wars in Muslim countries, thus pushing non-radical Muslims against us and lending credence to their ‘narrative’ about the US, these radicals would love to see Western officials and talking heads slamming Islam in general. They’re all up for an actual culture war and pushing non-radical Muslims to choose between their faith and the West.

    1. The radicals want to make every Muslim conform to their views. Saying “this has nothing to do with Islam” is to completely deny and ignore half of what the radicals want. This has everything to do with Islam. The heart of the issue is what kind of religion is it going to be going forward. Every Muslim in the world has to answer that question for themselves. And they also have to understand that if their answer is “no it shouldn’t be what the radicals want”, they need to stand up and do something, because the radicals are not going to stop until they have through violence and terror made the religion what they want.

      This is all about Islam and what it is going to be.

      1. … and whether it should be Sunni Islam or Shia Islam. Or even what brand of Sunni Islam, if Sunni Islam wins the political-religious war going on in the Middle and Near East.

  13. my roomate’s half-sister makes $69 hourly on the laptop . She has been without a job for 10 months but last month her check was $15722 just working on the laptop for a few hours. why not look here………..
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  14. The 46 examples of Muslims speaking out is bullshit. The Raw Story begins by comparing Islamist violence to radical Jewish violence. It’s a fact-less and stupid comparison. Jews aren’t blowing up the Eiffel Tower because of how the French treat Jews.

    Furthermore, the first example is from CAIR, which is at the very least an Islamist apologist organization, if not an out right Islamist organization. Yeah, they denounce violence just like David Duke does, but they are still religious supremacists. Don’t be confused by them just because they are a small minority in the United States. Islamists are popular enough in some places to control that country’s government.

  15. I would suggest that, if you really think Islam poses no cause for concern, everything al-Sisi said was complete bunk and should be summarily dismissed.

  16. I would suggest that, if you really think Islam poses no cause for concern, everything al-Sisi said was complete bunk and should be summarily dismissed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.