[UPDATE] Charlie Hebdo targeted AGAIN

[The Alma Mater]

They claim they do and surprisingly few muslims openly disagree.

Heck, if tens of thousands of muslims go out to riot on the street when some western rag they never heard of publishes some cartoons of Muhammed, it is pretty hard to maintain they do not represent a significant group.

Firstly, statistically, almost all Muslims do not support terrorists. Secondly, most of those protesters are peaceful, but showing peaceful Muslims doesn’t up your ratings. No. You have to find the angriest one at the protests, leave out the context of what he said, and use it to make them all seem violent.

People DIED at those protests. Protests over cartoons published in a paper NONE of the protesters would have ever seen if there had not been a few people dedicated to finding offence whereever they can.

But, as you wish. I will refer to them as "silly sods" instead of muslims, islamists etc.

[The Emerald Legion]

Anti-sexism
Islam



Uhhhhhhhhhhh

Anti-slavery is an equally questionable claim given the Islamic worlds significance in modern slavery.

And ancient slavery. The Swedish Slave Trades two main markets were Greece and Muslim nations.

[Nuroblav]

As someone who roasts everyone and everything, good for them. And to those who say it's disrespectful, keep in mind if I can sit through endless seasons of Southpark, you can take Charlie Hebdo.

^^This, to some extent. (I'd add Mindless Self Indulgence - they loved to piss off everyone as well.)

While I personally wouldn't myself, Charlie Hebdo should have the freedom to do so. Whether or not it's disrespectful doesn't have bearing on legality in this instance.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Good. When we bow to terrorists the terrorists win.

[Chan Island]

Good on them. Nobody should be cowed by intolerant fundamentalists.

[Insaanistan]

Good. When we bow to terrorists the terrorists win.

I’m a terrorist?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Good. When we bow to terrorists the terrorists win.

I’m a terrorist?

Are you? Very bad place to try to radicalise people, we've all already been done by other groups I'm afraid.

[Insaanistan]

Anti-slavery is an equally questionable claim given the Islamic worlds significance in modern slavery.

And ancient slavery. The Swedish Slave Trades two main markets were Greece and Muslim nations.

While Islam is anti-slavery, many Muslim nations decided to just do what Muhammad did before he freed all his slaves, adopted one and then became a prophet: treat them well. Secular, non-Muslim historians contend that slavery practiced in the majority of the Muslim world was in no way equivalent to slavery in the Atlantic Slave trade. Slavery often meant you were captured in battle or otherwise, the just given a job. Can you read and write? Cool. We’ll give you gold every month and pay you to be a sultan’s scribe. Studied the Qur’ân extensively. We’ll pay you to be a religious scholar. Good at fighting? We’ll pay you to be a soldier. Good at fighting and streategy? We’ll pay you to be a general. Not really good at anything? Well, I guess you can cook and clean until you or someone else buys your freedom. Slaves also were allowed to marry into their master or someone else’s family, and the children of a slave were not automatically slaves. Slaves were also allowed upward mobility, hence why we see African Muslims becoming slaves and ending up as nobles, emirs and sultans in as far as Islamic India, such as Malik Ambar. However, make no mistake: in many places, this deteriorated into conditions as bad or worse than the Triangular Slave Trade, especially the Omani Slave Trade. However, as long term effect, the biggest positives I could positively think of in that slave trade were of course, slaves becoming kings, but also the spread of Hausa (my ethnic group’s) music to Morocco, Algeria, Libya and (I think) Egypt. I know I’m Morocco it’s called Gnawa, named after the Royal Guard of African slaves, many of whom were Kanawa, meaning from Kano, Nigeria (Moroccan Arabic often turns K’s into G’s.

[Aureumterra]

People make satirical cartoons of Jesus all the time, why should Muhammad be exempt? He was, after all, a warlord

[The Alma Mater]

And ancient slavery. The Swedish Slave Trades two main markets were Greece and Muslim nations.

While Islam is anti-slavery, many Muslim nations decided to just do what Muhammad did before he freed all his slaves, adopted one and then became a prophet: treat them well. Secular, non-Muslim historians contend that slavery practiced in the majority of the Muslim world was in no way equivalent to slavery in the Atlantic Slave trade.

True. White people bought their slaves from blacks.
Muslims stole children - the Moors in particular are still infamous for it.

[Insaanistan]

I’m a terrorist?

Are you? Very bad place to try to radicalise people, we've all already been done by other groups I'm afraid.

I mean I didn’t think I was. Last I checked, I was Muslim, not a terrorist. Let me ask my mom just to be sure.

“Mma! (Mom!)
“Na’am? (Yes?)
“Muna Muslimi, eh? (We’re Muslim, right?)
“Eh...” (Yeah...)
“Bamu Daesh?” (We’re not DAESH/ISIS?)
“Mi?” (What?)
“Ba kome, na gode!” (Nothing, I thank you/thanks!)

Okay. She said we’re Muslim.

[Insaanistan]

While Islam is anti-slavery, many Muslim nations decided to just do what Muhammad did before he freed all his slaves, adopted one and then became a prophet: treat them well. Secular, non-Muslim historians contend that slavery practiced in the majority of the Muslim world was in no way equivalent to slavery in the Atlantic Slave trade.

True. White people bought their slaves from blacks.
Muslims stole children - the Moors in particular are still infamous for it.

Here we go again:

The argument “Blacks sold Blacks” is an outdated, biased argument meant to shift blame for the trade from Europeans to black people. First of all, nearly all African slaves were stolen by Europeans, not sold. Secondly, of those who were sold, most were not sold by their own people. What do I mean? Well, black people are arguably the most diverse race in existence. A Hausa person like me has more in common genetically with an Arab, Italian and Indian than I do with a person from the Yoruba tribe in the same country just a mile away. Slaves were nearly never of the same ethnic group as those who enslaved them, and those that were then essentially never from the same kingdom, sultanate, emirate etc. Slavery was usually like the slavery I described in my last post even in non-Muslim empires. Those who sold people often assumed they would just end up as soldiers, cleaners and cooks. No one really knew the horrors of what really went on in the Americas. For reference, no one would call a war between Canada and Chile “Americans fighting Americans”, as this is misleading and does factor in how different they really are. So please, cut the bull crap, and stop ignorantly saying “aFrIcAns sOlD aFrIcAnS”.

Also, I like how you omitted the vast majority of what I said.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Good for them, excellent news indeed.

[Insaanistan]

People make satirical cartoons of Jesus all the time, why should Muhammad be exempt? He was, after all, a warlord

Does this sound warlord-like?

وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ

And fight in the way of God those that fight you, but do not transgress,
for indeed God does not like the transgressors. [Qur’an 2: 190]


لاَ ينْهَاكُمُ اللهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فيِ الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُم مِّنْ دِيَارِكُمْ أَنْ تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ إَنَّ اللهَ يُحِبُّ المُقْسِطِينَ

God does not prohibit you from showing kindness and being just with those who do not fight you nor have driven you out of your homes. Indeed God loves those who are just. [Qur’an 60: 8]

Muhammad (pbuh)’s orders to soldiers before battle:

1. Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.
2. Do not practice treachery or mutilation.
3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.
4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.
5. If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.
6. Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship.
7. Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.
8. Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.
9. No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.
10. Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.

[Aureumterra]

True. White people bought their slaves from blacks.
Muslims stole children - the Moors in particular are still infamous for it.

Here we go again:

The argument “Blacks sold Blacks” is an outdated, biased argument meant to shift blame for the trade from Europeans to black people. First of all, nearly all African slaves were stolen by Europeans, not sold. Secondly, of those who were sold, most were not sold by their own people. What do I mean? Well, black people are arguably the most diverse race in existence. A Hausa person like me has more in common genetically with an Arab, Italian and Indian than I do with a person from the Yoruba tribe in the same country just a mile away. Slaves were nearly never of the same ethnic group as those who enslaved them, and those that were then essentially never from the same kingdom, sultanate, emirate etc. Slavery was usually like the slavery I described in my last post even in non-Muslim empires. Those who sold people often assumed they would just end up as soldiers, cleaners and cooks. No one really knew the horrors of what really went on in the Americas. For reference, no one would call a war between Canada and Chile “Americans fighting Americans”, as this is misleading and does factor in how different they really are. So please, cut the bull crap, and stop ignorantly saying “aFrIcAns sOlD aFrIcAnS”.

Also, I like how you omitted the vast majority of what I said.

Awfully long post with no sources at all

Meanwhile, take a look at Wikipedia (and this Wikipedia page has all of its main sources cited)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_ ... an_slavery

Slavery was prevalent in many parts of Africa[20] for many centuries before the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade. There is evidence that enslaved people from some parts of Africa were exported to states in Africa, Europe, and Asia prior to the European colonization of the Americas.[21]

The Atlantic slave trade was not the only slave trade from Africa, although it was the largest in volume and intensity. As Elikia M'bokolo wrote in Le Monde diplomatique:

The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth) ... Four million enslaved people exported via the Red Sea, another four million[22] through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean.[23]

According to John K. Thornton, Europeans usually bought enslaved people who were captured in endemic warfare between African states.[24] Some Africans had made a business out of capturing Africans from neighboring ethnic groups or war captives and selling them.[25] A reminder of this practice is documented in the Slave Trade Debates of England in the early 19th century: "All the old writers ... concur in stating not only that wars are entered into for the sole purpose of making slaves, but that they are fomented by Europeans, with a view to that object."[26] People living around the Niger River were transported from these markets to the coast and sold at European trading ports in exchange for muskets and manufactured goods such as cloth or alcohol.[27] However, the European demand for slaves provided a large new market for the already existing trade.[28] While those held in slavery in their own region of Africa might hope to escape, those shipped away had little chance of returning to Africa.

How about here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_ ... lave_trade

Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, selling their captives or prisoners of war to European buyers.[22] The prisoners and captives who were sold were usually from neighbouring or enemy ethnic groups.[citation needed] These captive slaves were considered "other", not part of the people of the ethnic group or "tribe"; African kings held no particular loyalty to them. Sometimes criminals would be sold so that they could no longer commit crimes in that area. Most other slaves were obtained from kidnappings, or through raids that occurred at gunpoint through joint ventures with the Europeans.[22] But some African kings refused to sell any of their captives or criminals. King Jaja of Opobo, a former slave, refused to do any business with the slavers.[citation needed]

According to Ipsen, Africans, namely Ghana, also participated in the slave trade through intermarriage, or cassare, meaning "to set up house". It is derived from the Portuguese word "casar", meaning "to marry". Cassare created political and economic bonds between European and African slave traders. Cassare was a pre-European practice used to integrate the "other" from a differing African tribe. Powerful West African groups used these marriages as an alliance used to strengthen their trade networks with European men by marrying off African women from families with ties to the slave trade. Early on in the Atlantic slave trade, these marriages were common. The marriages were even performed using African customs, which Europeans did not object to, seeing how important the connections were.[69]

Please stop with the historical revisionism, it is well documented that Europeans bought slaves from African rulers, and while some were quite literally "Taken and chained," the majority were captured prisoners of war who were then sold to Europeans by African rulers. Your post mentions no evidence, sources, or citations for your revisionist claims

[Alvecia]

People make satirical cartoons of Jesus all the time, why should Muhammad be exempt? He was, after all, a warlord

Does this sound warlord-like?

وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ

And fight in the way of God those that fight you, but do not transgress,
for indeed God does not like the transgressors. [Qur’an 2: 190]


لاَ ينْهَاكُمُ اللهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فيِ الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُم مِّنْ دِيَارِكُمْ أَنْ تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ إَنَّ اللهَ يُحِبُّ المُقْسِطِينَ

God does not prohibit you from showing kindness and being just with those who do not fight you nor have driven you out of your homes. Indeed God loves those who are just. [Qur’an 60: 8]

Muhammad (pbuh)’s orders to soldiers before battle:

1. Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.
2. Do not practice treachery or mutilation.
3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.
4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.
5. If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.
6. Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship.
7. Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.
8. Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.
9. No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.
10. Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.

I mean, none of those things preclude one from being a warlord. Just a warlord that has some pretty good ideas about sustainable raiding.

[Insaanistan]

Firstly, statistically, almost all Muslims do not support terrorists. Secondly, most of those protesters are peaceful, but showing peaceful Muslims doesn’t up your ratings. No. You have to find the angriest one at the protests, leave out the context of what he said, and use it to make them all seem violent.

People DIED at those protests. Protests over cartoons published in a paper NONE of the protesters would have ever seen if there had not been a few people dedicated to finding offence whereever they can.

But, as you wish. I will refer to them as "silly sods" instead of muslims, islamists etc.

Thank you, but I think maybe ridiculing a beloved religious figure is a bit offensive some people. But only like, 1.9-2.25 billion.

[The Alma Mater]

Also, I like how you omitted the vast majority of what I said.

I was actually hoping that you would start some self reflection and use the same competent level of criticism and critical thinking you display when talking about others on yourself as well.

One day you will. I have full confidence. The seed has been planted.

[Paddy O Fernature]

People DIED at those protests. Protests over cartoons published in a paper NONE of the protesters would have ever seen if there had not been a few people dedicated to finding offence whereever they can.

But, as you wish. I will refer to them as "silly sods" instead of muslims, islamists etc.

Thank you, but I think maybe ridiculing a beloved religious figure is a bit offensive some people. But only like, 1.9-2.25 billion.

And...?

[The Alma Mater]

People DIED at those protests. Protests over cartoons published in a paper NONE of the protesters would have ever seen if there had not been a few people dedicated to finding offence whereever they can.

But, as you wish. I will refer to them as "silly sods" instead of muslims, islamists etc.

Thank you, but I think maybe ridiculing a beloved religious figure is a bit offensive some people. But only like, 1.9-2.25 billion.

And ? The claim that Allah is the one true God is vastly more offensive to 70% of the worlds population. You are not going to stop making that claim either.

Being offended alone is insufficient reason to ban speech.

[Bear Stearns]

While Islam is anti-slavery, many Muslim nations decided to just do what Muhammad did before he freed all his slaves, adopted one and then became a prophet: treat them well. Secular, non-Muslim historians contend that slavery practiced in the majority of the Muslim world was in no way equivalent to slavery in the Atlantic Slave trade.

True. White people bought their slaves from blacks.
Muslims stole children - the Moors in particular are still infamous for it.

Not to mention that more African slaves went to the Arab world than to the Americas. The Middle East would have a larger black population than the Americas if they didn't castrate their slaves.

[Insaanistan]

Here we go again:

The argument “Blacks sold Blacks” is an outdated, biased argument meant to shift blame for the trade from Europeans to black people. First of all, nearly all African slaves were stolen by Europeans, not sold. Secondly, of those who were sold, most were not sold by their own people. What do I mean? Well, black people are arguably the most diverse race in existence. A Hausa person like me has more in common genetically with an Arab, Italian and Indian than I do with a person from the Yoruba tribe in the same country just a mile away. Slaves were nearly never of the same ethnic group as those who enslaved them, and those that were then essentially never from the same kingdom, sultanate, emirate etc. Slavery was usually like the slavery I described in my last post even in non-Muslim empires. Those who sold people often assumed they would just end up as soldiers, cleaners and cooks. No one really knew the horrors of what really went on in the Americas. For reference, no one would call a war between Canada and Chile “Americans fighting Americans”, as this is misleading and does factor in how different they really are. So please, cut the bull crap, and stop ignorantly saying “aFrIcAns sOlD aFrIcAnS”.

Also, I like how you omitted the vast majority of what I said.

Awfully long post with no sources at all

Meanwhile, take a look at Wikipedia (and this Wikipedia page has all of its main sources cited)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_ ... an_slavery

Slavery was prevalent in many parts of Africa[20] for many centuries before the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade. There is evidence that enslaved people from some parts of Africa were exported to states in Africa, Europe, and Asia prior to the European colonization of the Americas.[21]

The Atlantic slave trade was not the only slave trade from Africa, although it was the largest in volume and intensity. As Elikia M'bokolo wrote in Le Monde diplomatique:

The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth) ... Four million enslaved people exported via the Red Sea, another four million[22] through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean.[23]

According to John K. Thornton, Europeans usually bought enslaved people who were captured in endemic warfare between African states.[24] Some Africans had made a business out of capturing Africans from neighboring ethnic groups or war captives and selling them.[25] A reminder of this practice is documented in the Slave Trade Debates of England in the early 19th century: "All the old writers ... concur in stating not only that wars are entered into for the sole purpose of making slaves, but that they are fomented by Europeans, with a view to that object."[26] People living around the Niger River were transported from these markets to the coast and sold at European trading ports in exchange for muskets and manufactured goods such as cloth or alcohol.[27] However, the European demand for slaves provided a large new market for the already existing trade.[28] While those held in slavery in their own region of Africa might hope to escape, those shipped away had little chance of returning to Africa.

How about here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_ ... lave_trade

Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, selling their captives or prisoners of war to European buyers.[22] The prisoners and captives who were sold were usually from neighbouring or enemy ethnic groups.[citation needed] These captive slaves were considered "other", not part of the people of the ethnic group or "tribe"; African kings held no particular loyalty to them. Sometimes criminals would be sold so that they could no longer commit crimes in that area. Most other slaves were obtained from kidnappings, or through raids that occurred at gunpoint through joint ventures with the Europeans.[22] But some African kings refused to sell any of their captives or criminals. King Jaja of Opobo, a former slave, refused to do any business with the slavers.[citation needed]

According to Ipsen, Africans, namely Ghana, also participated in the slave trade through intermarriage, or cassare, meaning "to set up house". It is derived from the Portuguese word "casar", meaning "to marry". Cassare created political and economic bonds between European and African slave traders. Cassare was a pre-European practice used to integrate the "other" from a differing African tribe. Powerful West African groups used these marriages as an alliance used to strengthen their trade networks with European men by marrying off African women from families with ties to the slave trade. Early on in the Atlantic slave trade, these marriages were common. The marriages were even performed using African customs, which Europeans did not object to, seeing how important the connections were.[69]

Please stop with the historical revisionism, it is well documented that Europeans bought slaves from African rulers, and while some were quite literally "Taken and chained," the majority were captured prisoners of war who were then sold to Europeans by African rulers. Your post mentions no evidence, sources, or citations for your revisionist claims

“Ah yes, let’s ask the White dude if he thinks most slaves were stolen by white people or black people”. It would make more sense to ask the slaves, as, like I said, those who were African captured who captured AFrIcAns were generally never of the same ethnic group. Even sources claiming most slaves were bought rather stolen admit this. I’m not revising history. What IS revising history is that fact that these sources often come from the descendants of those who did the stealing. For the last time I AM NOT SAYING NO SLAVES WERE BOUGHT. What I AM saying is that that wasn’t the majority of slaves, and Africans who sold Africans were nearly never the same people groups. I am Hausa. I am just as likely to have relatives who were stolen as I am to have ones that sold people. But I ask you, look at the Africans who were capturing people. You will likely notice something... something around their necks: chains. These Africans who captured people were often already slaves, or would end up as slaves. And when Kong’s ad chiefs got wind of what was really going on in the Americas, they usually demanded the Europeans stop trying their, which would generally result in the capturing of essentially everyone in the village including the chief, followed by the collection guns to be sold by Europeans to another unsuspecting African chief.

Here’s one source to read for now. More coming along soon:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost ... 637798/amp

[Insaanistan]

Thank you, but I think maybe ridiculing a beloved religious figure is a bit offensive some people. But only like, 1.9-2.25 billion.

And ? The claim that Allah is the one true God is vastly more offensive to 70% of the worlds population. You are not going to stop making that claim either.

Being offended alone is insufficient reason to ban speech.

First of all, Allah is Arabic for God, so take out the percentage of people in that who are Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, “Educated” Hindus, Sikhs etc.

2. Last I checked, making fun of other religion’s figures isn’t a religious principle.

[Asle Leopolka]

And ? The claim that Allah is the one true God is vastly more offensive to 70% of the worlds population. You are not going to stop making that claim either.

Being offended alone is insufficient reason to ban speech.

First of all, Allah is Arabic for God, so take out the percentage of people in that who are Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, “Educated” Hindus, Sikhs etc.

2. Last I checked, making fun of other religion’s figures isn’t a religious principle.

It’s a freedom principle, nobody is saying it’s a religious one.

You’re biased and need to grow a thicker skin.

[Insaanistan]

True. White people bought their slaves from blacks.
Muslims stole children - the Moors in particular are still infamous for it.

Not to mention that more African slaves went to the Arab world than to the Americas. The Middle East would have a larger black population than the Americas if they didn't castrate their slaves.

Please read my other posts. Not saying there weren’t brutal Middle Eastern slave trading empires, just that they weren’t the majority. As for the castration, fortunately, not everyone went through that horrifying process, though it was relatively common, especially amongst guards. Dear God, the pain that must have been...