RandySF (7,564 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026639374
Let's go, point by point, how Pam Geller's "exhibit" was NOT the same as Charlie Hebdo.
1. It was not just an exhibit. She had a series of prominent anti-Muslim figures as speakers.
2. The event was held by her organization which has been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
3. The keynote speaker, Dutch politician Geert Wilders, wants to kill all the Muslims in Amsterdam.
4, it was held in a town where there has been ongoing tensions between Muslim residents on one side and pretty much everyone else on the other.
5. Charlie Hebdo jabbed all religions equally while Geller was been a one-person campaign against Islam.
No. No one has the right to kill another human being (I kind of thought that's a given). And Geller may not have planned for police officers to get shot. But don't be fooled by her false tears. She did this in the hopes something will happen that grabs enough headlines to further her cause.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to rebute this retardant post:
Muslims attack the site, and in Charlie's case killed a bunch.
The defense rests.
daleanime (8,233 posts)
1. Which in my book makes her almost, but not quite, as bad as the idiots who took the bait. No, there's never a good excuse for violence, but there's never a good reason to incite violence either.
kcr (8,403 posts)
3. I would go even further and say that those who champion free speech should be disgusted with her Not support her. She was deliberately inciting violence to make people afraid. It doesn't matter if the 1st Amendment exists or not if people are too afraid to exercise it. If you want free speech to flourish, the last thing you want to do is support a terrorist.
Of course---- nobody can tell me what Geller is lying about. They can never point to any falsehoods, just that she is hatefull. Show me where the lies are and maybe, maybe, I will start to think other wise.
951-Riverside (6,396 posts)
7. There is no difference, they're both racist hate mongers hiding behind "free speech"
and they both put an entire town and its law enforcement in jeopardy over their hate speech.
Pam Geller continues to put lives at risk, she needs to be arrested
yes, Geller needs to be arrested for telling the truth about islam. The attackers were just innocent youths until tricked into attacking...
Yorktown (469 posts)
9. The shootings and its cause are exactly the same
The fact Charlie hebdo were nice blasphemers and Geller a masty blasphemer doesn't alter the unicity of cause and effect of the two cases: blasphemers get shot because of blasphemy.
And the ideology of Islam calls blasphemy a grave offense with severe penalties, up to death.
A Pakistani ex-minister, Salmaan Taseer, was shot for merely opposing blasphemy laws. An American secular blogger, Avijit Roy, was hacked to death in Bangladesh for speaking out against religious extremism.
Could there be a pattern beyond Charlie Hebdo and Pamela Geller?
The pattern is that islam is a violent murderous hatefilled group wrapped into the trappings of a religion.
"masty"? NADIN, is this you?
melman (421 posts)
13. Yes they are exactly the same in the way that actually matters
which is that people were shot over DRAWINGS.
obvious mole
Bluenorthwest (35,618 posts)
21. Wow, you are right! But if you notice, the OP and others never mention Phelps because of two things
First, mention of Phelps instantly calls attention to the fact that provocations like this are common as dirt and when they are done to LGBT people, folks like the OP simply do not care. Phelps got no push back at all, for years and over the course of hundreds of stalking events against LGBT funerals. Funerals.
Second, the OP and others want to limit the speech of LGBT and artists, not the speech of Phelps and other religious hate mongers. They seek laws which allow religion to spew invective freely while limiting the rights of others to respond to such attacks. So Phelps makes them very uncomfortable on several levels, so they pretend he and his history do not exist, they pretend they did no sit back and watch hundreds of hateful, provocative events without once standing up against them.
leftynyc (14,757 posts)
15. While their motives were different both knew they were pushing the envelope and knew that many would be insulted by their cartoons - what is the same is that the terrorists rose to the bait and gave confirmation bias a leg up. That geller got what she was looking for doesn't make the fact that nobody HAD to rise to her bait any less valid. Killing over cartoons is madness and I don't give a **** how insulting people find it. While I try and respect all religious beliefs, catering to the taboos is a bridge too far for me.
The DUmp won't listen to logic. They won't listen to facts. They know how they 'feel' and that's all that matters.
What is Islam's position on homosexuality?Islam goes beyond mere disapproval of homosexuality. Sharia teaches that homosexuality is a vile form of fornication, punishable by death. Beneath the surface, however, there are implied references to homosexual behavior in paradise, and it has been a part of historical Arab and Muslim culture.
The Qur'an:
Qur'an (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)" - An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the "rain of stones" on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people's destruction. (The story is also repeated in suras 27 and 29).
Qur'an (7:81) - "Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?" This verse is part of the previous text and it establishes that homosexuality as different from (and much worse than) adultery or other sexual sin. According to the Arabic grammar, homosexuality is called the worst sin, while references elsewhere describe other forms of non-marital sex as being "among great sins."
Qur'an (26:165-166) - "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing"
Qur'an (4:16) - "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone" This is the Yusuf Ali translation. The original Arabic does not use the word "men" and simply says "two from among you." Yusuf Ali may have added the word "men" because the verse seems to refer to a different set than referred to in the prior verse (explicitly denoted as "your women"). In other words, since 4:15 refers to "your women", 4:16 is presumably written to and refers to men.
Interestingly, the same rules don't apply in paradise, where martyrs for the cause of Allah enjoy an orgy of virgins and "perpetual youth" Qur'an (56:17) (otherwise known as "boys" Qur'an (52:24)). Qur'an (76:19) bluntly states, "And immortal boys will circulate among them, when you see them you will count them as scattered pearls." Technically, the mere presence of boys doesn't necessarily mean sex, however it is strongly implied from the particular emphasis on the effeminacy, handsomeness and "freshness" of the boys. The female virgins of paradise are also compared to pearls (56:23).
[Editor's note: We are not implying a link between homosexuality and pedophilia here anymore than we are implying one between heterosexuality and pedophilia when mentioning that Muhammad's preferred wife was a 9-year-old girl.]
From the Hadith:
There are several lesser hadith stating, "if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers," "If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses,†"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,†and “Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."
Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".
Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death." (Note the implicit approval of sodomizing one's wife).
Bukhari (72:774) - "The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, 'Turn them out of your houses .' The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman."
al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."
Reliance of the Traveller, p17.2 - "May Allah curse him who does what Lot's people did." This is also repeated in three other places.
Additional Notes:
When Mehmed conquered Constantinople in 1453, the Muslim general demanded the 14-year-old son of one of the city's Christian leaders as his sexual concubine (the father and son chose death instead). Subsequent Ottoman administrators also engaged in homosexuality, often with the boys of conquered populations who could not afford to satisfy the jizya (poll tax on non-Muslims) in any other way than to relinquish their own children to the Religion of Peace.
And yet, homosexuals have been beheaded, hung and stoned in modern Saudi Arabia and Iran, where Muhammad's laws are applied most strictly. Five other Muslim countries also have the death penalty on their books for homosexual behavior. In the past, gays were burned as well. As one cleric recently put it, the only point of theological debate is over how the offender should be killed.
Thus illustrates the moral confusion that Islam has with homosexuality. Small wonder that the Islamic Republic of Iran hangs gays but allows men to get a sex change (sometimes at public expense).
There are several places in the Qur'an where the story of Sodom is repeated, with emphasis placed on the destruction of the town for homosexual lewdness. Also, according to Serge Trifkovic:
Mohammed’s first successor Abu Bakr reportedly had a homosexual burned at the stake. The fourth caliph, Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, ordered a sodomite thrown from the minaret of a mosque. Others he ordered to be stoned. One of the earliest and most authoritative commentators on the Koran, Ibn ‘Abbas (died 687) blended both approaches into a two-step execution in which “the sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned. (source)
Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi-Amoli of Iran said, in April of 2012, that homosexuals are inferior to dogs and pigs, since these animals (presumably) do not engage in such acts. In November of that year, a cleric on British television stated, "What should be done to those who practice homosexuality? Torture them; punish them; beat them and give them mental torture."
A 2014 fatwa from the mainstream OnIslam.net proclaimed that homosexuality is "abnomal" and abhorrent" and confirmed that gays should be killed: "The punishment for men or women who are unwilling to give up homosexuality and therefore are rejecting the guidance of Allah Most High is in fact death according to Islam."
Although some Muslim political leaders in the West join with social liberals in alliances that occasionally include peripheral support for gay rights and civil unions, this appears to be more a matter of expediency than genuine concern. There has never been any noticeable effort on the part of Muslim leaders in the West to relieve the plight of homosexuals in Islamic countries overseas - where their influence would surely carry more weight than that of their secular allies.
(As a side note, in 2012, a cleric issues a fatwa endorsing sodomy as a means of widening the anus in order to pack it with enough explosives to kill bystanders in a suicide bombing. As Sheikh Abu al-Dema al-Qasab put it, "Jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it."
