Machine gun attack on Paris magazine office

Or maybe we should all 'go John Castle' and read shit for what it actually says instead of reinterpreting it in order to excuse it. Right, Leftforge?

Yes, let's change the subject from what's happening now to what happened then. Why? So that you can do again now the same stupid shit you did then.

Fucking moron.

It gets worse with context.

[2:179] O ye who believe! equitable retaliation in the matter of the slain is prescribed for you: the free man for the free man, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But if one is granted any remission by one’s brother, then pursuing the matter for the realization of the blood money shall be done with fairness and the murderer shall pay him the blood money in a handsome manner. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. And whoso transgresses thereafter, for him there shall be a grievous punishment.

[2:180] And there is life for you in the law of retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may enjoy security.

Then a bit about making a will, a bit about not altering anyone's will, some stuff about fasting, and then right back to it

[2:191] And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors.

[2:192] And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein. But if they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers.

[2:193] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

[2:194] And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is freely professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors.

[2:195] The violation of a Sacred Month should be retaliated in the Sacred Month; and for all sacred things there is the law of retaliation. So, whoso transgresses against you, punish him for his transgression to the extent to which he has transgressed against you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

And then it goes into the pilgrimage, and then back to

[2:217] Fighting is ordained for you, though it is repugnant to you; but it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you like a thing while it is bad for you. Allah knows all things, and you know not.

[2:218] They ask thee about fighting in the Sacred Month. Say: ‘Fighting therein is a great transgression, but to hinder men from the way of Allah, and to be ungrateful to Him and to hinder men from the Sacred Mosque, and to turn out its people therefrom, is a greater sin with Allah; and persecution is worse than killing.’ And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can. And whoso from among you turns back from his faith and dies while he is a disbeliever, it is they whose works shall be vain in this world and the next. These are the inmates of the Fire and therein shall they abide.

Then drinking, gambling, and orphans, a bit more about killing, and then a long, long bizarre stretch on marriage and divorce.

Bull shit. You say that as if you think nobody can look it up; well, somebody already did. It says exactly what you claim it doesn't. It says to kill "infidels." That's exactly what it says to do. Repeatedly.

When did he ever try?

Yeah, defend the religious nutsacks who would kill you over the guy who would want you to not get killed.

Fuckin' fine. Morons.

I genuinely don't understand this reply. Have you been on the booze again?

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609637/donohue-charlie-hebdo/

Despite Castle's stupid derp it is not liberals who saying journalists shouldn't satire religious figures. Nope, that would be the Catholic Church along with several Protestant churches; hardly liberal groups but certainly ones with vested interests in making themselves immune.

There's a lot of killing infidels in Islam, but that verse doesn't say kill infidels, it says we'll defend ourselves against religious persecution. It's right there verbatim: Religious persecution is more serious than simple murder, and it's a fight you never start, but always end.

What do you think these verses say? It looks like you're just quoting anything you can find that mentions blood, even if, like in this instance, it points out a way to avoid bloodshed.

Bill Maher opines and bucks the librul trend:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/...at-religions-theyre-all-stupid-and-dangerous/

The passage is pretty vague on what counts as "aggression", and "persecution".
It would seem merely being a disbeliever.

So, fight until everyone's a Muslim.
No biggie.

Yes, because "until persecution is no more" obviously means "until everyone is Muslim", and "fight not with them until they first attack you in your place of worship, but if they attack you there then slay them" obviously "is pretty vague on what counts as aggression, and only means being a disbeliever".

When your basic reading skills fail, there's something wrong with your argument.

So just for clarity, "do not fight with them" does not seem to have any relevance to you in this context?

But "religion is for Allah" does. What do you think that means? Are you saying "religion is for Allah" tells you that "all infidels must be killed"? I think you're skipping a few steps there.

Oh, I'm sure conversion would do the trick.

What trick? Are you just going to keep running, or will you tell us what you think "religion is for Allah" means?

Hint: It's flanked by two statements that say fighting should stop as soon as infidels are no longer attacking Muslims. So, do you think this verse says that a Muslim's religion is for fighting other men? Or is it a thing intended for his God, and not troubled by other men believing other things?

I think "...and no one else", is kind of implied there.
There's a gaping silence wherever "eh, those other Gods probably have some good things to say too", would go.

The infidels is the operative word there.
What, Muslims never fight each other?
No true Scotsman?
Come on now.

Still running, I see.

If you're serious about interpreting the verse, say what you think it means, in a whole sentence, and why.

Really? In "if the infidels desist from attacking you, stop fighting them", the word 'infidel' is the 'operative word' that tells you this means "keep fighting them"?

How far below elementary school reading levels are you prepared to go to defend your prejudiced reading?

((Note that I'm not even attacking your prejudice. There is indeed a strong tradition in Islam of fighting infidels, and part of the problem here is that you're not only misreading the verse, but also ignoring the limited context in which it applies. Instead of using a verse that says you should in general attack infidels, you're quoting one that says stop fighting them unless they attack you, but not in general, only in this specific historical instance. You're just wrong in three different ways at once.))

There are about 100 versus of the Koran that command violence against infidels, non-believers, and whatnot, and some of the later revelations toss aside the idea that Muslims should only fight in defense, or only when attacked.

[8:12] I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

[9:29] Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

It's an interesting question whether Muhammed actually recited some of those verses or whether they were added later to help turn the religion into a force of conquest.

True. But that doesn't magically mean that all verses say that, and you can just quote them without reading what they actually say. The two you just quoted deal with war criminals after their defeat (8) and taxation (9).

Reminds me of GamerGate.

Breaking, suspect supposedly found, car chase underway in new stolen car with shots having been fired. Hostages rumoured.

Hope this doesn't mean the intention is to go out in a blaze of glory and take more with them.

At least one or two further people dead in the shootout. Now camped out in a printing factory.

Whatever way it turns out, I hope they don't kill them because that's what they want. Better to arrest, try, and send them to a boring prison for a hundred years.

For those of you addicted to FOX News and are convinced that the Muslim world is largely silent about this, I strongly recommend you demand Rupert Murdoch make his employees do their fucking job.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/...ris-shooting-that-fox-news-cant-seem-to-find/

It would never happen - the mimes would hide in their imaginary boxes.

Good idea - Obama hasn't closed gitmo yet!

Fuck you, people died and before the culprits were even officially known that's where you went?

Radical Islam can suck a dick and die.