French Director Converts to Islam After Charlie Hebdo Attacks

[I.R.A]

For god's SAKE. Is it this hard for you to absorb this little information? HITLER DIDN'T CLAIM THAT HE WAS REPRESENTING CHRISTIANITY NOR DID HE HAVE ANY INTEREST IN EXPANDING CHRISTIANITY. MUSLIM MILITANTS ON THE ITHER HAND CLAIM THAT THEY REPRESENT ISLAM AND THEY ACTIVELY ENGAGE IN EXPANDING ISPAM BY MASS MURDER, RAPE, FORCED CONVERSIONS ETC.

It would be wrong if people start blaming Arabs, Pujabis, Pashtuns, Persians etc. for the deeds of Islamists because those people didn't claim that they represented their ethnic groups and they their actions were not aligned with the interests of their ethnicity.

How hard would it be to understand this simple logic?

Your shouting does not impress me. Now excuse me I have no intentions of engaging in discussion with someone who fails to understand a simple logic and is hell bent on proving his baseless point.

 

[Azizam]

Add to that same Akheilos would be saying after a decade or two that the Yazidis and other minorities in Iraq and Syria converted to Islam willingly and would deny the existence of a military and terrorist campaign against them. Oh wait it has already began on social media. Some are already claiming that they converted willingly.

Your shouting does not impress me. Now excuse me I have no intentions of engaging in discussion with someone who fails to understand a simple logic and is hell bent on proving his baseless point.

The one who denies logic is you my friend. Give it few years and there will be no minorities in Syria or Iraq except Kuridstan. And again it's the likes of you that supported Maldives' decision to bar non-Muslims acquiring citizenship saying that there are no non-Muslims in Maldives and it's completely normal. Perfectly convenient eh? First stay silent until the "extremists" wipe out the minorities and after that you can deny their past and future existence.

 

[I.R.A]

The one who denies logic is you my friend. Give it few years and there will be no minorities in Syria or Iraq except Kuridstan. And again it's the likes of you that supported Maldives' decision to bar non-Muslims acquiring citizenship saying that there are no non-Muslims in Maldives and it's completely normal. Perfectly convenient eh? First stay silent until the "extremists" wipe out the minorities and after that you can deny their past and future existence.

????? So it's my fault. What is your level of knowledge about Islam?

 

[Azizam]

????? So it's my fault. What is your level of knowledge about Islam?

I am not saying that they are muslims or not. It doesn't concern me. I am not on a missionary purpose to malign one religions and promote another. I am merely stating my views based on what I have observed.

 

[I.R.A]

I am not saying that they are muslims or not. It doesn't concern me. I am not on a missionary purpose to malign one religions and promote another. I am merely stating my views based on what I have observed.

You may have your observation but to form your opinion about a faith you need to judge individual acts of its followers in light of it's preaching, Once again any goon who is a Muslim and thinks Islam needs his representation or ownership he needs to revisit his faith.

 

[My-Analogous]

For god's SAKE. Is it this hard for you to absorb this little information? HITLER DIDN'T CLAIM THAT HE WAS REPRESENTING CHRISTIANITY NOR DID HE HAVE ANY INTEREST IN EXPANDING CHRISTIANITY. MUSLIM MILITANTS ON THE OTHER HAND ACTIVELY CLAIM THAT THEY REPRESENT ISLAM AND THEY ACTIVELY ENGAGE IN EXPANDING ISPAM BY MASS MURDER, RAPE, FORCED CONVERSIONS ETC.

It would be wrong if people start blaming Arabs, Pujabis, Pashtuns, Persians etc. for the deeds of Islamists because those people didn't claim that they represented their ethnic groups and they their actions were not aligned with the interests of their ethnicity.

How hard would it be to understand this simple logic?

I understand your problem and it is unfortunately very common problem with lots of westerner and that is they already think them self righteous and other people wrong and with that approach you will not learn or understand other. If some christian did some thing you should accept that too. By the way these terrorist don't have any religion and according to our faith we don't have right to kill any innocent creature and in this list humans is also present. the only creature we allow to slater is Goat, Cow, chicken and camel and with a limit to kill according to our requirement and if we do excess killing then it is punishable sin. Now see how hard to understand this to you?

 

[Jungibaaz]

this is ridiculous, people there are filled with rage and hatred towards the muslim attackers, then there is she, height of stupidity.

This is a classic case of taking liberalism, claiming it's superiority. And then misusing/soiling it for the sake of some very strange statements.

I see nothing wrong with what she has said/done. Her choice to convert, worship and live as she pleases. Freedom of expression allows her to proclaim it too at even the most inappropriate moment.

She in converting and then openly proclaiming shows more brazen use of her freedoms, the same freedom people held candle vigils for a few days ago.

lovely way to start a denial syndrome attack?

It's his signature. Disguising something utterly stupid in the form of an indirect, meaningless, bent in direction, one-liner.

did you read her statement correctly? lol she said i quote: With regard to her position towards the caricatures of the Prophet, Matic said that she is still for freedom of expression for all, and Charlie Hebdo in particular. “They are making fun of Muhammad and do not harm him. They are making fun of a character that they have imagined and to whom they have given a name. This man is not our Prophet,” she added.

So do you still agree with her? lool So our satirical newspapers can now continue with their normal activities/carricature without Muslims protesting and burning churches all over the world? lool You agree with this? Just let us know. lol

Yes.

Most beautiful slap on face of charlie hebdo idiots

It's actually more of a slap on the faces of people who carried out the attacks and those who were justifying it. See here:

With regard to her position towards the caricatures of the Prophet, Matic said that she is still for freedom of expression for all, and Charlie Hebdo in particular.

“I will write you the text of the SMS that I received this morning from a mosque which agreed quite well with my thoughts since the beginning of the cartoons, well before I became a Muslim,” she wrote on her page on Wednesday at 12:48.

“They are making fun of Muhammad and do not harm him. They are making fun of a character that they have imagined and to whom they have given a name. This man is not our Prophet,” she added.

French Director Converts to Islam After Charlie Hebdo Attacks | Morocco World News

And I don't care what your book says. I only care what the followers do because the words can't jump out of the book and do anything.

This is true not just for you, but all non-Muslims. We didn't convert to Islam because we suddenly started believing in Islamic texts, we were exposed to it's followers, their ways, culture and practice of their religion.

This is something Muslims find it hard to understand. Which is why so often, the notion of responding with; 'You need to educate yourself on the teachings of Islam and the Qur'an.'... is so often used as a defence. Though I agree with it, people blindly criticising should go read, but the reason for the misconceptions and hate is due to the actions of the Muslims, not the presence of what is and isn't in a book they've never read.

Hitler didn't represent Christianity but his racial superiority and racial superiority is condemned and not acceptable anymore.

Invalid argument, I agreed with you before. But you have to hold the standard for all once you make it for one.
If it is the fault of Muslims there is hate for them. Then it is the fault of Christians that there was hate for the religion at the time of the Crusades, or hate for Christians because of the use of religion by evil powers.

Islam is in a period of mad violence and adjustment. The violence you see is not an Islamic trait, nor the trait of any ideology, it's an entirely human trait and Christianity at one time or another was associated by some to be as violent, not to long ago Anders Breivik gunned down so many kids in Norway, he repeatedly called himself a soldier of Christ. He mentioned the name 'Christ' 500 times in the first part of his manifesto.

Bund blast much?

Don't provoke him, otherwise you'll get a highly encrypted, brilliantly disguised retort in the form of a shapeless shitpost.

For god's SAKE. Is it this hard for you to absorb this little information? HITLER DIDN'T CLAIM THAT HE WAS REPRESENTING CHRISTIANITY NOR DID HE HAVE ANY INTEREST IN EXPANDING CHRISTIANITY. MUSLIM MILITANTS ON THE OTHER HAND ACTIVELY CLAIM THAT THEY REPRESENT ISLAM AND THEY ACTIVELY ENGAGE IN EXPANDING ISPAM BY MASS MURDER, RAPE, FORCED CONVERSIONS ETC.

It would be wrong if people start blaming Arabs, Pujabis, Pashtuns, Persians etc. for the deeds of Islamists because those people didn't claim that they represented their ethnic groups and they their actions were not aligned with the interests of their ethnicity.

How hard would it be to understand this simple logic?

Try to study the traits of any ideology, as a science, not that the ideologies themselves are science, but their place in the world, and their effect on the human psyche and society at large can be judged scientifically. Once you do that, it's not difficult to see the truth of the matter when it comes to ideology.

That goes for all ideologies, not just one religion, but all, and not just religion, any ideology, Marxism, environmentalism, any '-ism'.

 

[Not Sure]

Most beautiful slap on face of charlie hebdo idiots

Are you guys really as thick as you appear?

With regard to her position towards the caricatures of the Prophet, Matic said that she is still for freedom of expression for all, and Charlie Hebdo in particular.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Masha'Allah. Good for her.

I simply asked if you agree with her statement i quoted above. So do you think we should be free to carry on with our carricatures/satiric about your prophet whithout repercussions? Answer bro, just so i know you are as tolerant as she is.

I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it. A lot of us go to sleep with our faith in our hearts and our families and work on our mind. People of your mindset go to sleep with small minds and guilt at having nothing productive or useful to do in life.

 

[Solomon2]

It's his signature. Disguising something utterly stupid in the form of an indirect, meaningless, bent in direction, one-liner.

It's quite simple here: all one has to do is click on the embedded link to discover the meaning.

 

[haviZsultan]

A secular system might be the only hope for us. We need to change our mentality. How can we shout about the west when we are so weak.

This is an article I wrote many years ago:

Why do we fear Secularism?

By Havi Z Sultan

Many Pakistanis have a built in aversion towards the word secularism while taking an excessive pride in the Islamic Republic attached to Pakistan’s name. Despite the fact that many Pakistanis fail to follow the tenets of Islam and the word Islamic Republic makes a mockery of the meaning it remains a source of excessive pride. Scholars claim that today the country is very far from Islam because very few people in Pakistan really follow the tenets of Islam however very few of them can answer the question whether it's worthwhile to have an “Islamic Republic” only in name. However the real question is do we really have anything to fear from Secularism in the first place?

According to its dictionary meaning Secularism refers to the equal treatment of each and every religious group within the Nation and to the idea that religion should have a smaller role in politics and decision making because when it has too large a role people spend their time over their own separate interpretations of religion rather than Nation building and the tasks at hand.

Many Muslims in Pakistan fear secularism because they have a perverse idea of the concept fearing Islam will be diminished with Secularism. This is completely untrue. Pakistan’s Islamic identity will not be lost with a Secular system.

Will Secularism decrease Islam’s value in Pakistan?

Many Pakistanis continually fear that secularism will decrease Islam's value or worse will eliminate Islam from Pakistan.

The fact is no one is pushing Islam away and with 95% of the population of Pakistan being proud and extremely pious Muslims for the most part it is impossible to even try. Islam will still be practiced by the majority of people as it is being practiced today without any hindrance whatsoever. The only difference perhaps will be that religion will be a personal matter. A person who does not follow Islam devotedly or a follower of a different religion or a sect of Islam will not be persecuted for having his own separate beliefs.

If seen in such a light Secularism is nothing to be feared. We can be proud Muslims and defend Islam as much or even more with a secular constitution as we can by labelling a country ruled by very corrupt people with barely any link to Islam an “Islamic Republic”. An Islamic Republic where the rulers themselves have no link to Islam and others often use religion as a tool to fulfill their personal interests.

The fact is that a country that calls itself an Islamic Republic should have a constitution, laws (that are implemented instead of being cleared by people who can pay bribes), rules and regulations based on the tenets of Islam. A country lacking the Islamic economic and judicial system based on the teachings of the Prophet can't be an Islamic Republic. It's not that Pakistanis haven't tried. If proof is needed one needs to look at Zia's Islamicization. Pakistanis have tried to impose Islam in letter and spirit for 60 years and failed. It's more than time we revised our direction.

The tenets of Islam support Secularism & harmony

“To you be your Faith, and to me mine.”

Ayat 109:6

During the rule of Ali Ibn Abi Talib the fourth Caliph of Islam a Jew stole a shield that belonged to the Caliph and claimed that it was his. He was brought to the court of Ali to settle the dispute. However due to lack of proof and according to Islamic law the Jew was allowed to keep the shield as Hazrat Ali could not prove he owned the shield. This was a verdict going against a Muslim Caliph in his own court. However Hazrat Ali accepted the decision calmly. On the other hand the Jew was dumbfounded as he had indeed stolen the shield. He was quick to embrace Islam and declared that he had lied in front of the entire court.

This was one example of how Islam spread to become one of the largest religions in the World and won hearts and minds. It was due to the insight and tolerance our ancestors had that we got to where we are, that Cordova and Baghdad became centres of learning and Islam spread from the corners of Spain to the boundaries of the far east.

Unfortunately many people in Pakistan do not understand that human rights and the equal treatment of all individuals in the country is more important in Islam rather than a notion of Islamic pride and superiority where labelling a country an “Islamic Republic” is deemed necessary. This pride comes from a past that our ancestors built with policies that we fail to understand today.

The Quaid E Azams Principles

“In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”

Quaid E Azam, February 1948

The above quote is the greatest proof that Quaid E Azam did not want a state that was built solely on the basis of religion. Unfortunately since his death the constitution has been changed to suit every new leader that came and the title “Islamic Republic” untrue it may be has been added along with many laws that are completely out of line with Quaid E Azam's original ideas for Pakistan. If we look closely at many of his speeches we will notice Quaid E Azam was a staunch supporter of secularism with an added focus on Islamic thought and ideology. Therefore until he was alive the Islamic Republic was never attached to the countries name. That happened when Ayub Khan came into power.

Other speeches by Quaid E Azam that clearly supported the message of peace, harmony and equality between all groups whether they are ethnic or religious are stated below.

‘We are starting with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state. No matter what is his colour, caste or creed is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations….”

“In due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims – not in a religious sense for that is the personal faith of an individual- but in a political sense as citizens of one state.”

“[If you] work together in a spirit that everyone of you no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.”

11 August 1947

“The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the Minorities regardless of caste and creed. We must make it a matter of our honor and prestige to create sense of security amongst them.”

30th October 1947

Clearly Quaid E Azam understood that a Nation could not be built until differences were eliminated and people saws themselves as equal members of a single society regardless of faith or ethnicity.

Perhaps if that spirit was alive today Pakistan would not be afflicted with minor issues and infighting over Shia-Sunni, Barelvi-Deobandi, Wahabi-Mainstream Muslim, and the principles of personal freedom would have given way to building a Nation that was the most glorious one in history. Unfortunately this destiny still awaits the Pakistani race which dreams for justice and equality. Many conservatives continuously deny Quaid E Azam wanted a secular country believing that such a concept is against Islam when it is not. Perhaps they fear for their own interests but Quaid E Azam did indeed want a Nation that was Secular or Socialist and gave equal opportunity to all inhabitants.

People try to deny this but the fact is, being Muslims this is not something for us to be ashamed of but something glorious. That a leader who did so much for Muslims, gave them a new homeland and independence, still understood the morals of our ancestors because of whom Islam to spread is truly remarkable.

Issues caused by the misinterpretation of Islamic Law & resources used to contain them

The fact that laws created to safeguard Islam are being used for the benefit and self interest of bad people does not do anything great for the image of Islam. A clear example is the blasphemy law, a law that makes an insult to Islam, the Prophet or the Quran illegal and punishable by death. This law has been used against minorities for a long time. However Muslims have fallen victims to this law as well.

An example of how this law is misused was the case of Mohammad Imran who was arrested in Faisalabad for blasphemy on the 28th of October 2007. He was falsely blamed because of a personal argument. After being arrested he was first tortured by the police, then the inmates and later he was placed in solitary confinement without anyone looking after his injuries. He was only released in April 2009 after being declared innocent.

Another example was the framing of Akhtar Hammed Khan, an 81 year old writer and sociologist by business interests and authorities unwilling to let his development work take place in Orangi, Karachi. He had launched a development project on the behalf of the people of Orangi. His project offering real estate loans on good terms and work to improve the condition of women through education, and access to employment and family planning was not well-liked by these authorities. Thus they decided to book him on false charges with the police under the blasphemy laws. He was later released due to inadequate evidence but the case proves how the law is being used to settle personal scores and disputes.

Minorities have many such stories to share as 60% of all victims who are framed under this law are Non Muslims. The law has become a tool for fanatics, murderers and people seeking to settle personal scores yet the law still hasn’t been repealed due to the fact that militants have some influence on governance. Land disputes or personal quarrels are by far the main reason for people to be booked under this law.

Another such law is the Hudood Ordinance where in a case of Rape four witnesses are required to confirm that a rape has taken place. This is practically impossible. However the woman who complains that a rape has taken place is often booked for being with another man while the culprits of the rape run free.

Therefore the Hudood Law became a tool in the hands of rapists and today any woman can be raped. But when she goes to the police to get justice the Hudood Law can be used to frame her because by claiming that she has been raped she also admits that she has been with another man and committed Zinah. Some figures claim that in the year 1979 there were only 70 women in Pakistani jails. A decade later, in 1988, this figure had risen to 6000 and over 80% of the women in prison were there because of these laws. It is said many more women do not even report rapes in fear of being persecuted due to this law.

Is Pakistan really Islamic?

Better to have a Secular constitution than Islam only in name

There is no doubt that our leaders found us a land that was a safe haven for Muslims and gave us freedom to make our own decisions without the fear of suffering biased treatment for the faith we followed. However the question today is how much Islam is being followed in the country?

For instance the Quran states “Keep yourselves away from bribes because it is kufr and one who receives them will never smell the scent of paradise”. The fact is in Pakistan taking and giving bribes is so common that even a noble person can hardly live without paying one. Some honourable folk still struggle on but their lives are much more difficult. If a person has money it is a possibility he has given or taken a bribe at least once. Unfortunately the entire bureaucracy is at the forefront of this rot. Justice is sold and witnesses can be bought.

On the other hand while drinking is not allowed and a license is required in order to drink in Pakistan, people who want to drink do so with impunity and with no fear of being punished. The law is not even being implemented while if a drunkard happens to get caught a simple bribe wins back the persons freedom. On the other hand while adultery is considered a punishable law under the constitution it is practiced by many people in the country without any fear of punishment. The same goes for many other laws. It is virtually impossible to implement these laws and it costs resources to do so.

The fact is many laws related to Islam exist in Pakistan but they are there only in name. They are either being misused by people for their own interests or they are not implemented and people who commit heinous crimes are allowed to go free because of them, without any fear of punishment while the innocent are framed.

The real question for Pakistan today is whether it is sensible to have a false, broken and corrupt “Islamic Republic” in name or is it better to have a secular constitution that guarantees freedom to everyone and ensures that there are no vaguely addressed laws that make a mockery of our religion and are misused for the benefit of a few criminals.

 

[jbond197]

I think if you people spent as much time convincing muslims as you do trying to convince us, Islamic terrorism would end within the year.

Lol!! That's the best comment of the whole thread and this is the only practical solution for Islamic world's problem. But it will work only if Muslims acknowledge they have a problem. Instead the easy way they find out is disclaiming the follower of Islam who is caught in terrorism act. Nice way!! He ain't Muslim now you can't blame Muslims.

 

[Azizam]

Invalid argument, I agreed with you before. But you have to hold the standard for all once you make it for one.
If it is the fault of Muslims there is hate for them. Then it is the fault of Christians that there was hate for the religion at the time of the Crusades, or hate for Christians because of the use of religion by evil powers.

Islam is in a period of mad violence and adjustment. The violence you see is not an Islamic trait, nor the trait of any ideology, it's an entirely human trait and Christianity at one time or another was associated by some to be as violent, not to long ago Anders Breivik gunned down so many kids in Norway, he repeatedly called himself a soldier of Christ. He mentioned the name 'Christ' 500 times in the first part of his manifesto.

I disagree. The standard is you represent what you claim to represent. In Hitler's case represented the German race and racial superiority and they both were held accountable for the crimes done by Hitler and his supporters. Same standards apply to Islamists. They claim to represent Islam and actively engage in serving interests of Islam so they are also considered Muslims. As I have mentioned before, some of the people who claim that Islamic militants are not Muslims will later on claim that the minorities in places like Iraq and Syria converted willingly and it will be an indirect support to the cause of those militants.

You can't pick who should represent an ideology and who doesn't out of its followers. By looking at the current events, it seems that Islamists are causing a significant damage. Also please refer to post #13.

Not hatred. It's rather illogical to post threads about people converting to Islam when most muslim-majority countries have outlawed apostasy. Looks more like playing football alone, winning and bragging about it. It's immature.

Which countries still outlaw apostasy and blasphemy? | Pew Research Center

Islam is in a period of adjustment but lack of responsibility by its followers will only worsen the situation. If the situation has to be changed, we must work towards it otherwise it will not fix itself and denial will not mean that there is a problem exist.

I myself is against any kind of religious interference in public sphere. The bitter truth I notice right now is that it's primarily Muslims who are struggling to adjust with time and thus being at odds with the rest of the world.

 

[jaunty]

Ya its safe.

Countries with penalty fo apostacy!

Also known as - ''Please understand the real meaning you Islamophobes - there is no force in religion.''

Tumhara conversion subhan allah, humara conversion wajib ul qatal?

 

[waz]

Stay on topic folks or the thread will be locked. Thank you.