Muslims join Catholics at Mass across France to show solidarity

[Dittohead not!]

Muslims join Catholics at Mass across France to show solidarity

PARIS (AP) - Reporters on the scene said that between 100 and 200 Muslims gathered at the towering Gothic cathedral in Rouen, only a few kilometers (miles) from Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, where the 85-year-old Rev. Jacques Hamel was killed by two teenage attackers on Tuesday.
“We’re very touched,” Archbishop Dominique Lebrun told broadcaster BFMTV. “It’s an important gesture of fraternity. They’ve told us, and I think they’re sincere, that it’s not Islam which killed Jacques Hamel.”

Nice gesture.

 

[EnigmaO01]

Awesome!

When I was in Spain a month before 911 I was on a tour of an place of worship from several hundred years ago that has Jewish, Christian, and Muslim symbols embedded in the floor. Can't remember which one it was, but it appears at least for a brief period of time all got along.

 

[Bodi]

Muslims join Catholics at Mass across France to show solidarity




Nice gesture.

Hopefully this unity grows and becomes more and more reported by the media...

 

[TheGoverness]

Muslims join Catholics at Mass across France to show solidarity




Nice gesture.

Cool. I'd definitely like to see more of this.

 

[Serenity]

Cool. I'd definitely like to see more of this.

Sure, it's a nice gesture. Why though is this generally only expected of Muslims? Why is there an expectation that Muslims specifically must speak out and condemn violent acts and publically show solidarity when they have no connection to the incident, and why do others, across the political spectrum, expect it above all others?

Those who proclaim Muslims don't "speak out" enough, only grow more demanding when Muslims actually do speak out, because by doing so Muslims have publicly affirmed the right of others to blame them collectively, regardless of whether they are accountable or not. The reality for some is that it will never be enough, that's why they can't define what is enough in their eyes.

 

[coldjoint]

Sure, it's a nice gesture. Why though is this generally only expected of Muslims? Why is there an expectation that Muslims specifically must speak out and condemn violent acts and publically show solidarity when they have no connection to the incident, and why do others, across the political spectrum, expect it above all others?

Those who proclaim Muslims don't "speak out" enough, only grow more demanding when Muslims actually do speak out, because by doing so Muslims have publicly affirmed the right of others to blame them collectively, regardless of whether they are accountable or not. The reality for some is that it will never be enough, that's why they can't define what is enough in their eyes.

What is to blame is the religion. That is the root of the problem. And mosques are teaching it. Muslims are a distraction from what inspires the Islamists. That is the doctrine of Islam.

If you can't accept that you don't live in the real world.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Sure, it's a nice gesture. Why though is this generally only expected of Muslims? Why is there an expectation that Muslims specifically must speak out and condemn violent acts and publically show solidarity when they have no connection to the incident, and why do others, across the political spectrum, expect it above all others?

Those who proclaim Muslims don't "speak out" enough, only grow more demanding when Muslims actually do speak out, because by doing so Muslims have publicly affirmed the right of others to blame them collectively, regardless of whether they are accountable or not. The reality for some is that it will never be enough, that's why they can't define what is enough in their eyes.

Because there are nutters committing atrocities in the name of Islam?

 

[Serenity]

Because there are nutters committing atrocities in the name of Islam?

That doesn't address my question. Why is there an expectation that muslims specifically must speak out and condemn violent acts when they have no connection to the incident and why do others across the political spectrum expect it above all others? Heinous crimes carried out in the name of religion are as much anathema to the average Australian or American Muslim as they are to any other Aussie or American. The notion that Muslims should feel some form of collective guilt and be collectively punished is a reprehensible one, but it seems to be evident into an increasing number of people’s attitudes.

Is it really so difficult to comprehend that the Muslims mentioned in the the OP are showing solidarity and horrified by these attacks, not because they are Muslim but because they are human?

 

[Chagos]

Because there are nutters committing atrocities in the name of Islam?

There are nutters committing atrocities in the name of my race (whatever that's supposed to be).

Where I speak out against their actions I do it of my own accord but I'd be pretty annoyed if I were to be confronted with a general demand by whoever to do so.

The inherent suggestion (in such a demand) that I'm associated with any such actions in question until I've vociferously disassociated myself from them, takes audacity to new heights.

 

[coldjoint]

There are nutters committing atrocities in the name of my race (whatever that's supposed to be).

Where I speak out against their actions I do it of my own accord but I'd be pretty annoyed if I were to be confronted with a general demand by whoever to do so.

The inherent suggestion (in such a demand) that I'm associated with any such actions in question until I've vociferously disassociated myself from them, takes audacity to new heights.

Just one more reason to do nothing about the problem.

 

[coldjoint]

That doesn't address my question. Why is there an expectation that muslims specifically must speak out and condemn violent acts when they have no connection to the incident and why do others across the political spectrum expect it above all others? Heinous crimes carried out in the name of religion are as much anathema to the average Australian or American Muslim as they are to any other Aussie or American. The notion that Muslims should feel some form of collective guilt and be collectively punished is a reprehensible one, but it seems to be evident into an increasing number of people’s attitudes.

Is it really so difficult to comprehend that the Muslims mentioned in the the OP are showing solidarity and horrified by these attacks, not because they are Muslim but because they are human?

Muslims are adherents to Islam. We have no idea what they might believe in the scope of that religion. The religion cannot be separated from its followers. In this case it is the religion that inspires terror. It is clear jihad is an obligation. It is also clear that Islam considers only believers as innocents. That means the death of non-Muslims a trivial occurrence.

We need to ask ourselves why they don't leave the religion if they disagree with its message?

 

[Dittohead not!]

That doesn't address my question. Why is there an expectation that muslims specifically must speak out and condemn violent acts when they have no connection to the incident and why do others across the political spectrum expect it above all others? Heinous crimes carried out in the name of religion are as much anathema to the average Australian or American Muslim as they are to any other Aussie or American. The notion that Muslims should feel some form of collective guilt and be collectively punished is a reprehensible one, but it seems to be evident into an increasing number of people’s attitudes.

Is it really so difficult to comprehend that the Muslims mentioned in the the OP are showing solidarity and horrified by these attacks, not because they are Muslim but because they are human?

Right, and the nutters committing atrocities in the name of Allah doesn't reflect badly on Muslims in general. It's not a huge PR problem for the mainstream Muslims, no. And we don't have people blaming all of Islam for the Jihadis at all. Therefore, there is no more need for Muslims to address this issue than for anyone else. So, Muslims attending Catholic mass to show solidarity is totally unnecessary, as everyone understands that those who commit atrocities have perverted Islam.

Or, at least, that must be how it is in other realities. In this parallel universe, people do blame Islam, do look at the Koran and quote verses that seem to support the Jihadis, and do fear Islam.

 

[Visbek]

What is to blame is the religion. That is the root of the problem. And mosques are teaching it. Muslims are a distraction from what inspires the Islamists. That is the doctrine of Islam.

If you can't accept that you don't live in the real world.

Uhm.... You do know that European Christians spent over 1000 years in a constant state of warfare, mostly with each other, occasionally fighting the Moors for Spanish territory, and invading Palestine? That Christians fought each other for centuries over sectarian differences? That centuries of Christian violence culminated in inconceivable body counts for World War I and II? You haven't forgotten about that, right...?

The idea that Islam is somehow more violent than Christianity is absurd, and is based on sheer ignorance of history and theology.

 

[Dittohead not!]

There are nutters committing atrocities in the name of my race (whatever that's supposed to be).

Where I speak out against their actions I do it of my own accord but I'd be pretty annoyed if I were to be confronted with a general demand by whoever to do so.

The inherent suggestion (in such a demand) that I'm associated with any such actions in question until I've vociferously disassociated myself from them, takes audacity to new heights.

Well, it appears Coldjoint thinks Muslims are indeed associated with the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Do you think he's alone in that opinion?

 

[coldjoint]

Uhm.... You do know that European Christians spent over 1000 years in a constant state of warfare, mostly with each other, occasionally fighting the Moors for Spanish territory, and invading Palestine? That Christians fought each other for centuries over sectarian differences? That centuries of Christian violence culminated in inconceivable body counts for World War I and II? You haven't forgotten about that, right...?

The idea that Islam is somehow more violent than Christianity is absurd, and is based on sheer ignorance of history and theology.

It is not an idea it is a fact. Show me the Christian doctrine and tell me where it calls for war or violence. I can show you plenty in Islamic doctrine that condones violence and advocates using it.

 

[coldjoint]

Well, it appears Coldjoint thinks Muslims are indeed associated with the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Do you think he's alone in that opinion?

They are associated with a religion that sanctions violence. There is no escaping that fact.

 

[Chagos]

Well, it appears Coldjoint thinks Muslims are indeed associated with the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Do you think he's alone in that opinion?

I have no intention of gracing that poster's suppositions with even the slightest hint of consideration.

Beyond which I'm not sure how your above question relates to what I said and what you quoted of mine. If you go back to read it you may perhaps see the analogy quote in the name of my race unquote.

If I were religious, what would an atrocity committed in the name of my religion have to do with me? Or, if you prefer, what would an atrocity committed by someone who's an atheist have to do with me? Even where I'd follow my natural urge to condemn it?

The narrative that certain people of simple outlook (or often of dishonest presentation) prefer, is the one where Salafi-jihadism that results in mass slaughter of civilians, is an imperative prerequisite for qualifying as Muslim. Well, no matter how often that ideological rosary is prayed around and around by the bigots that be, repetition does not turn a lie into truth.

But, to re-address focus, demanding that someone not associated with something need disassociate him- or herself from that something, is not only presumptuous but also pretty idiotic.

 

[Chagos]

Awesome!

When I was in Spain a month before 911 I was on a tour of an place of worship from several hundred years ago that has Jewish, Christian, and Muslim symbols embedded in the floor. Can't remember which one it was, but it appears at least for a brief period of time all got along.

Going thru history of that particular area you'll find they got along fine for nearly 7 centuries here (yeah, I'm in Spain).

In fact it needed the Christians gaining the upper hand (over the Moors) for mutual tolerance to go South. Both Moors that had long since surrendered to Christian rule and Jews to be expelled from the new Christian realm altogether. Not without slaughter, I might add.

Up until Zionism and its consequences (a topic not belonging in this forum at all) Jews lived in Muslim countries far better and under greater tolerance that they would ever receive in any "Christian" country.

 

[Visbek]

It is not an idea it is a fact. Show me the Christian doctrine and tell me where it calls for war or violence.

Typically, the Christian doctrine cited was that whoever was victorious in battle had the favor of God. This was a common assumption throughout much of European history, as typified by the 100 Years' War.

European Christian soldiers were also incredibly vicious and cruel, frequently sacking cities, exterminating soldiers who protected a city, looting and raping and killing citizens in cities that did not surrender. The Muslims were shocked by the savagery of the Crusaders. So were the residents of Constantinople, the Christian capital, who were attacked by the Crusaders in 1204; the victors rampaged for three days, destroying countless artifacts and the Library of Constantinople.

Christians were also virulently intolerant not just of other religions (notably repeated pogroms against Jews, typically based on blood libel) but of each other, typically citing sectarian justifications to attack each other and seize territory.

Even the Pope often hired mercenaries to wage war on various territories in Italy.

Last but not least, Christian armies managed to ignore their own god's injunctions long enough to kill 38 million people in WWI, and at least as many in Europe alone during WWII.

Now, I don't think that Christians are inherently any worse than any other religion. However, suggesting that Christians are generally peaceful is risible.

I can show you plenty in Islamic doctrine that condones violence and advocates using it.

There's also a lot of Islamic doctrine and history which favors peace and coexistence.

But the larger point is that doctrine doesn't matter. People routinely disregard religious doctrine in daily lives and warfare alike. Heck, even Buddhists fairly regularly wage war, sometimes quite brutally, as we saw in Sri Lanka's civil war.

The idea that these types of qualities are somehow intrinsic to a religion is ridiculous given the historical record. It's nothing more than rank and biased rationalizations, and attempts to vilify people on the most transparent of tribalist excuses.

 

[Chagos]

Uhm.... You do know that European Christians spent over 1000 years in a constant state of warfare, mostly with each other, occasionally fighting the Moors for Spanish territory, and invading Palestine? That Christians fought each other for centuries over sectarian differences? That centuries of Christian violence culminated in inconceivable body counts for World War I and II? You haven't forgotten about that, right...?

The idea that Islam is somehow more violent than Christianity is absurd, and is based on sheer ignorance of history and theology.

That (the bolded) having been said, you'll surely realize the waste of time that responding as you did signifies.

Ignorance is bliss.

To some.

OTH it is convenient to those others with a clear cut agenda of slamming whole groups of people on account of their never to be (self-)admitted bigotry.

 

[Chagos]

Cool. I'd definitely like to see more of this.

Thy call is heeded and thou shalt be served

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa_on_Terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253

was condemned by Muslim groups. In Canada, a group of Canadian and U.S. Islamic leaders issued a fatwa, or religious edict, condemning any attacks by extremists or terrorists on the United States or Canada and declaring that an attack by extremists on the two countries would constitute an attack on Muslims living in North America. "In our view, these attacks are evil, and Islam requires Muslims to stand up against this evil," said the fatwa signed by the 20 imams associated with the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#2011_Alexandria_bombing

Egyptian Muslims showed up at churches on the eve of the Coptic Christmas on 6 January 2011 during mass service forming a "human shield" against any possible further attacks.[15] In the days before the mass, Muslims and Copts joined together in a show of solidarity that included street protests, rallies, and widespread Facebook unity campaigns calling for an “Egypt for All”.[16] In Lebanon, separate condemnations came from the Sunni Mufti of the Republic Mohammad Qabbani and Deputy Head of the Shiite Supreme Council Abdul Amir Qabalan.[17] Hamas has also condemned the bombing in Alexandria, assigning the blame to hidden hands that do not wish well for Egypt and its Muslim and Christian people and seek to inflame sectarian strife. Hamas in its statement sent condolences to Egypt and the victims' families, and hoped that facts would be disclosed the soonest and that those responsible would be brought to justice

Amr Khaled, an influential Egyptian Muslim preacher, launched a campaign to fight sectarian incitement made on the internet,

ahem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Yemen will fight against al-Qaida group as it harmed the reputation of the country, Yemeni tribes and Muslims...

We expressedChieftain Naji bin Abdul-Aziz al-Shaif of the northern powerful Bakeel tribe and the organizer of the rally stated: "We our sorrow to all countries and people who were harmed by al-Qaida

Belgian Muslims condemn attacks, donate blood – POLITICO

http://www.usip.org/olivebranch/2016/06/14/muslims-condemn-orlando-attack

http://time.com/4112830/muslims-paris-terror-attacks-islam-condemn/

 

[TheGoverness]

Thy call is heeded and thou shalt be served

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa_on_Terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#2011_Alexandria_bombing
ahem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Yemen will fight against al-Qaida group as it harmed the reputation of the country, Yemeni tribes and Muslims...

Belgian Muslims condemn attacks, donate blood – POLITICO

http://www.usip.org/olivebranch/2016/06/14/muslims-condemn-orlando-attack

http://time.com/4112830/muslims-paris-terror-attacks-islam-condemn/

Thanks for the info-mation Chagos. :2wave:

 

[Chagos]

Right, and the nutters committing atrocities in the name of Allah doesn't reflect badly on Muslims in general. It's not a huge PR problem for the mainstream Muslims, no. And we don't have people blaming all of Islam for the Jihadis at all. Therefore, there is no more need for Muslims to address this issue than for anyone else. So, Muslims attending Catholic mass to show solidarity is totally unnecessary, as everyone understands that those who commit atrocities have perverted Islam.

"Everyone" appearing to be (as we can see here with the odd poster) a bit of a stretch.

And where one can indeed argue necessity, let's re-focus again on what this is about. Like "demand" by those you cite below this.

Or, at least, that must be how it is in other realities. In this parallel universe, people do blame Islam, do look at the Koran and quote verses that seem to support the Jihadis, and do fear Islam.

and that validates their claim?

Islam is bad because that's what I believe. And I believe that because it IS bad.

Now where have we heard similar logic before?

The issue here is not simply the ignorance of certain parties, it's those ignoramuses taking every opportunity to spread their stupidity. In those cases, that is, where thus interested posters are not in fact aware of lying and spread the resulting outcome.

Lies.

 

[Chagos]

Thanks for the info-mation Chagos. :2wave:

Pleasure, guapa, pleasure.

 

[coldjoint]

"Everyone" appearing to be (as we can see here with the odd poster) a bit of a stretch.

And where one can indeed argue necessity, let's re-focus again on what this is about. Like "demand" by those you cite below this.
and that validates their claim?

Islam is bad because that's what I believe. And I believe that because it IS bad.

Now where have we heard similar logic before?

The issue here is not simply the ignorance of certain parties, it's those ignoramuses taking every opportunity to spread their stupidity. In those cases, that is, where thus interested posters are not in fact aware of lying and spread the resulting outcome.

Lies.

Islam is bad. What else can you call it? Obligations to kill or subdue non-believers is good? There is no stupidity unless it is in Islams doctrine, or is killing eveyone who is not Islamic somehow smart?

And there are no lies. It is what Islam is all about. The lies are saying it is not.

As far as the outcome that has nothing to do with Islams critics. The outcome is a work in progress orchestrated by Islamists and their financial supporters. And the apologists that use logic to defend an illogical ideology? Islam is dualism, it says one thing is true and what contradicts that thing is true also. Logic left the mosque the day Islam was founded.