2020 French Terrorist Beheadings and Attacks Thread

[Fahran]

Do you really think Christianity and its splits weren't political?

Not to the same extent. The split between the Sunnis and Shias originated in what amounted to a succession squabble between Ali ibn Abi Talib and, in quick succession, Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, and Uthman ibn Affan. Christianity eventually managed to sort out a distinction between secular politics and ecclesiastical politics - and thus a lot of the reasons behind the schisms at present are rooted in abstract theological differences. A lot of the differences between Sunnis and Shias have to do with the proper succession to caliphal office and the compilation of often radically divergent hadiths and law codes - and in places like Iran the distinction between secular and religious law is nonexistent. Additionally, the maddhabs are explicitly a religious division rooted in Islamic jurisprudence. Islam is about as legalistic as the more orthodox denominations of Judaism, arguably even more so given that their legal institutions weren't ground into dust by the Romans.

Also, Aisha riding a camel to rally the supporters of the House of Umayya against the Alids was super metal.

[The Two Jerseys]

There's a term for that: "oppression".

Sure... but restricting the rights of Muslims isn’t? Makes total sense.

Except nobody is restricting the rights of Muslims, so...

[Diarcesia]

Sure... but restricting the rights of Muslims isn’t? Makes total sense.

Except nobody is restricting the rights of Muslims, so...

China does.

[New Steuben]

Except nobody is restricting the rights of Muslims, so...

China does.

Sure but we are obviously talking about france and the west

[West Leas Oros 2]

Except nobody is restricting the rights of Muslims, so...

China does.

La France n'est pas la Chine.

[Fahran]

Except nobody is restricting the rights of Muslims, so...

France arguably does in some respects. Specifically, France prohibits religious symbols in public institutions such a schools - with this prohibition extending to Christian symbols such as rosaries and to Islamic garb such as the hijab. Additionally, Macron has closed down several mosques and madrassas. Mind you, most of these are the sorts of mosques and madrassas I'm not really inclined to weep for on account of their radicalism, but it is a form of restriction of religious freedom. Lastly, the culture of modern liberal democracies does not necessarily blend very well with more traditional religious values and it can make it difficult to observe your religion outside of insular communities - it's one reason Orthodox Jews tend to clump together in places like New York and why evangelical Christians are often ill at ease with the status quo in the US. Mind you, these groups are all different, but there is some very rough overlap.

[Insaanistan]

Islam is not a problem in France. But extremism is a plague that must be exterminated.

Ah, I thought you were going to make an argument like the one of many presented in The Reluctant Fundamentalist. Excellent novel by the way.

Extremism is the belief al gays must die. That all non-Muslims will go to hell.

If I recall correctly, some hadiths do prescribe the death penalty for homosexual acts since they constitute a form of zina, though this could be interpreted only to apply to unmarried men. I'm skeptical that any Abrahamic religion, even my own, is going to have an altogether favorable view of LGBT+ issues. At best, we can hope to stymie the occurrence of mob justice and state-sanctioned executions.

With regard to the latter problem, I don't really consider it an issue. Someone thinking that you'll go to Hell isn't terribly oppressive so long as they don't hound or accost you and aren't your parents, family, or close friends.

The hadiths that say this are of virtually no validity.

[Vassenor]

Ah, I thought you were going to make an argument like the one of many presented in The Reluctant Fundamentalist. Excellent novel by the way.


If I recall correctly, some hadiths do prescribe the death penalty for homosexual acts since they constitute a form of zina, though this could be interpreted only to apply to unmarried men. I'm skeptical that any Abrahamic religion, even my own, is going to have an altogether favorable view of LGBT+ issues. At best, we can hope to stymie the occurrence of mob justice and state-sanctioned executions.

With regard to the latter problem, I don't really consider it an issue. Someone thinking that you'll go to Hell isn't terribly oppressive so long as they don't hound or accost you and aren't your parents, family, or close friends.

The hadiths that say this are of virtually no validity.

It was my understanding that the "72 virgins" one is also pretty invalid but it still gets thrown around by the phobes looking for justifications.

[Saiwania]

I’d rather NOT be caught siding with a person who has not remorse for children orphaned by war.

Bah, give me a break. That is just how warfare is. The collateral damage is immaterial compared to which side wins or how each military performs on the battlefield. The battles and manuvers are what really matters in such a context. Nobody wages war expecting it to be free of carnage or consequence. That just isn't how its done.

France is soft in too many ways, but at least it isn't so soft as to not have options with which to respond to hostilities from whichever faction or whoever it may be.

[Albrenia]

I’d rather NOT be caught siding with a person who has not remorse for children orphaned by war.

Bah, give me a break. That is just how warfare is. The collateral damage is immaterial compared to which side wins or how each military performs on the battlefield. The battles and manuvers are what really matters in such a context. Nobody wages war expecting it to be free of carnage or consequence. That just isn't how its done.

France is soft in too many ways, but at least it isn't so soft as to not have options with which to respond to hostilities from whichever faction or whoever it may be.

The fuck...

[Pan Evropa]

The Islamist terrorists are also far right, sorta like the Crusaders or to a lesser extent Evangelicals.

well yes they are but its important to separate Islamist terrorism from nazi terrorism. There is as much a case to lump some of them in with the far-left based on their affiliation.

The Crusaders can't really be called far-right since they all had different motives for crusading and the political environment was so radically different then. Applying modern day political terms to stuff 100 years ago is hard enough, never mind 1000 years ago.

[Insaanistan]

The hadiths that say this are of virtually no validity.

It was my understanding that the "72 virgins" one is also pretty invalid but it still gets thrown around by the phobes looking for justifications.

Yup. The verse says heavenly beings, and the number 72 never appears there.

[Insaanistan]

I’d rather NOT be caught siding with a person who has not remorse for children orphaned by war.

Bah, give me a break. That is just how warfare is. The collateral damage is immaterial compared to which side wins or how each military performs on the battlefield. The battles and manuvers are what really matters in such a context. Nobody wages war expecting it to be free of carnage or consequence. That just isn't how its done.

France is soft in too many ways, but at least it isn't so soft as to not have options with which to respond to hostilities from whichever faction or whoever it may be.

WHAT
THE
F-

[Tarsonis]

Bah, give me a break. That is just how warfare is. The collateral damage is immaterial compared to which side wins or how each military performs on the battlefield. The battles and manuvers are what really matters in such a context. Nobody wages war expecting it to be free of carnage or consequence. That just isn't how its done.

France is soft in too many ways, but at least it isn't so soft as to not have options with which to respond to hostilities from whichever faction or whoever it may be.

WHAT
THE
F-

Saiwana is an admitted fascist.

[Aureumterra III]

The Islamist terrorists are also far right, sorta like the Crusaders or to a lesser extent Evangelicals.

well yes they are but its important to separate Islamist terrorism from nazi terrorism. There is as much a case to lump some of them in with the far-left based on their affiliation.

The Crusaders can't really be called far-right since they all had different motives for crusading and the political environment was so radically different then. Applying modern day political terms to stuff 100 years ago is hard enough, never mind 1000 years ago.

Modern day political terms "left" and "right" stopped being relevant after the cold war

[Insaanistan]

WHAT
THE
F-

Saiwana is an admitted fascist.

I mean, I know, and I said he was earlier, but still.

[Vassenor]

It was my understanding that the "72 virgins" one is also pretty invalid but it still gets thrown around by the phobes looking for justifications.

Yup. The verse says heavenly beings, and the number 72 never appears there.

I've also seen the "white grapes" translation being passed around too.

Either way, if the radicalizers are using the promise of 72 virgins in heaven as a means to tempt potential targets then it's another way they're lying to them about Islam.

[Pan Evropa]

well yes they are but its important to separate Islamist terrorism from nazi terrorism. There is as much a case to lump some of them in with the far-left based on their affiliation.

The Crusaders can't really be called far-right since they all had different motives for crusading and the political environment was so radically different then. Applying modern day political terms to stuff 100 years ago is hard enough, never mind 1000 years ago.

Modern day political terms "left" and "right" stopped being relevant after the cold war

Well I think they're okay indicators to an extent... I call myself center-right because its a term people understand you know? And its also good for labelling in the case of terrorism here. So far-right refers to fascist/nazi terrorists, and far-left refers to socialist/communist/anarchist terrorists. But in the case of just normal political discourse I wish people would stop looking at things in terms of left and right and instead look at them in terms of effectiveness.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Except nobody is restricting the rights of Muslims, so...

China does.

Yeah, but China restricts the rights of everyone. Doesn't count.

[Insaanistan]

China does.

Yeah, but China restricts the rights of everyone. Doesn't count.

It’s not putting everyone in Concentration camps.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Yeah, but China restricts the rights of everyone. Doesn't count.

It’s not putting everyone in Concentration camps.

Just because one group is being oppressed more does not negate the oppression that others face.

You understand this, yes?

[Insaanistan]

It’s not putting everyone in Concentration camps.

Just because one group is being oppressed more does not negate the oppression that others face.

You understand this, yes?

I’m not suggesting it negates it, I’m just saying that its attitude towards Muslims (especially Turkic Muslims) is much more severe.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Just because one group is being oppressed more does not negate the oppression that others face.

You understand this, yes?

I’m not suggesting it negates it, I’m just saying that its attitude towards Muslims (especially Turkic Muslims) is much more severe.

Yes, but no one is saying it isn't. I, specifically, was acknowledging that anyone who isn't part of the CCP has it rough no matter what group they belong to. The fact Uyghur Muslims have it the worst does not make that fact any less true.

[Fahran]

The hadiths that say this are of virtually no validity.

You'd have to reject or recontextualize a vast swathe of classical Islamic jurisprudence to arrive at this conclusion as far as I can discern. Going by the opinions that come out of Al-Azhar and Egypt, the position of Islam on homosexual acts is controversial at the very least. I'd argue the most charitable interpretation of the mainstream application of sharia in the Dar as-Salaam is that, while a court may impose a hadd punishment on transgressors, this is not perhaps necessary in all circumstances and, furthermore, that confirming guilt is next to impossible much of the time.

Source

All the major doctrines within the Sunni and Shi’a traditions, and most notably the Shafi School, agree that homosexual intercourse (liwat) is analogous to heterosexual zina, and should therefore be rejected. Apart from the Hanafi school, all Islamic schools take the position that homosexual conduct amongst men, and particularly the act of sodomy (i.e., anal penetration), attracts the Hadd punishment. Only minor doctrines, like Zahirism (a Sunnite doctrine) and Rafida (a Shi’ite doctrine), suggest that homosexuals should not be punished.

Regarding the punishment for homosexuality, there is a consensus among the four leading Sunni schools of thought and most Islamic scholars that homosexual acts are a major sin (fahicha) and may be punishable by death. The Shafi, Maliki, and Hanbali schools generally prescribe the death penalty for penetrative same-sex intercourse, with general disagreements surrounding the mode of execution. Likewise, the Jafari School (Shi’a) also prescribes the death penalty. Only for the Hanafi School is homosexual conduct considered a slightly less serious offense and is punished through physical chastisement (at the discretion of the court); however, even for this School, the penalty of death may be awarded for a persistent offender. Likewise, for Islamic scholars who consider that the punishment of homosexuality is equivalent to the punishment for zina, the death sentence, provided the evidentiary requirements are met, may be also applied; married men who are offenders of zina (muhsan) face a mandatory death sentence, while flogging is applied to unmarried men (ghayr muhsan).

Source.

Hudud punishments range from public lashing to publicly stoning to death, amputation of hands and crucifixion. Hudud crimes cannot be pardoned by the victim or by the state, and the punishments must be carried out in public. These punishments were rarely implemented in practice, however, because the evidentiary standards were often impossibly high. For example, meeting hudud requirements for zina and theft was virtually impossible without a confession in court, which could be invalidated by a retraction. Based on a hadith, jurists stipulated that hudud punishments should be averted by the slightest doubts or ambiguities (shubuhat, sing. shubha). The harsher hudud punishments were meant to deter and to convey the gravity of offenses against God, rather than to be carried out.

[Insaanistan]

The hadiths that say this are of virtually no validity.

You'd have to reject or recontextualize a vast swathe of classical Islamic jurisprudence to arrive at this conclusion as far as I can discern. Going by the opinions that come out of Al-Azhar and Egypt, the position of Islam on homosexual acts is controversial at the very least. I'd argue the most charitable interpretation of the mainstream application of sharia in the Dar as-Salaam is that, while a court may impose a hadd punishment on transgressors, this is not perhaps necessary in all circumstances and, furthermore, that confirming guilt is next to impossible much of the time.

Source

All the major doctrines within the Sunni and Shi’a traditions, and most notably the Shafi School, agree that homosexual intercourse (liwat) is analogous to heterosexual zina, and should therefore be rejected. Apart from the Hanafi school, all Islamic schools take the position that homosexual conduct amongst men, and particularly the act of sodomy (i.e., anal penetration), attracts the Hadd punishment. Only minor doctrines, like Zahirism (a Sunnite doctrine) and Rafida (a Shi’ite doctrine), suggest that homosexuals should not be punished.

Regarding the punishment for homosexuality, there is a consensus among the four leading Sunni schools of thought and most Islamic scholars that homosexual acts are a major sin (fahicha) and may be punishable by death. The Shafi, Maliki, and Hanbali schools generally prescribe the death penalty for penetrative same-sex intercourse, with general disagreements surrounding the mode of execution. Likewise, the Jafari School (Shi’a) also prescribes the death penalty. Only for the Hanafi School is homosexual conduct considered a slightly less serious offense and is punished through physical chastisement (at the discretion of the court); however, even for this School, the penalty of death may be awarded for a persistent offender. Likewise, for Islamic scholars who consider that the punishment of homosexuality is equivalent to the punishment for zina, the death sentence, provided the evidentiary requirements are met, may be also applied; married men who are offenders of zina (muhsan) face a mandatory death sentence, while flogging is applied to unmarried men (ghayr muhsan).

Source.

Hudud punishments range from public lashing to publicly stoning to death, amputation of hands and crucifixion. Hudud crimes cannot be pardoned by the victim or by the state, and the punishments must be carried out in public. These punishments were rarely implemented in practice, however, because the evidentiary standards were often impossibly high. For example, meeting hudud requirements for zina and theft was virtually impossible without a confession in court, which could be invalidated by a retraction. Based on a hadith, jurists stipulated that hudud punishments should be averted by the slightest doubts or ambiguities (shubuhat, sing. shubha). The harsher hudud punishments were meant to deter and to convey the gravity of offenses against God, rather than to be carried out.

Al-Azhar is disregarded by a lot of Muslims because all Islamic institutions in Egypt are heavily government controlled.