Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack

[dismal]

Well don't all the people trying to make this about Western actions in the Middle East look stupid (even stupider...) now that this is shown to be the work of regular Europeans.

Everyday Belgians pissed off at France because of Napoleon and such.

Almost as stupid as all those Republican governors using this as a reason to reject Syrian refugees.

Well, yeah. We need to stop the Belgians, obviously.

Also, all the people you keep insisting want to kill us because of our history of interfering in their countries.

 

[untermensche]

Almost as stupid as all those Republican governors using this as a reason to reject Syrian refugees.

Well, yeah. We need to stop the Belgians, obviously.

Also, all the people you keep insisting want to kill us because of our history of interfering in their countries.

All I know is that there are millions of American victims scattered all across the Middle East.

Do they want to kill Americans?

Most likely many would love to.

 

[barbos]

French people of course, who else?

Makes as much sense as saying somebody living in Lebanon, or Iraq, or Eqypt is responsible for ISIS.

Sarcasm detection failed.

 

[untermensche]

Makes as much sense as saying somebody living in Lebanon, or Iraq, or Eqypt is responsible for ISIS.

Sarcasm detection failed.

My comment sailed over your head.

People are claiming that Muslims in general should be doing.......something......in response to violence from ISIS.

Why?

They have nothing to do with it.

 

[barbos]

With all due respect but if western people start moaning muslims killing muslims they would not be able to do anything else.
Also your links don't count as protests, because it was basically funerals and if one thing muslims love that's funerals after suicide bombing. If they are "lucky" then funerals would be be bombed too, then next funerals, .....

Reading comprehension fail. There were protests across the country, not just the funeral demonstration.

Great, so where are their protests against french killing?

 

[barbos]

Sarcasm detection failed.

My comment sailed over your head.

People are claiming that Muslims in general should be doing.......something......in response to violence from ISIS.

Why?

They have nothing to do with it.

Because they protested against cartoons, that's why.
There is profound difference in protest topic selection algorithms between westerner and these muslim people.

 

[dismal]

Well, yeah. We need to stop the Belgians, obviously.

Also, all the people you keep insisting want to kill us because of our history of interfering in their countries.

All I know is that there are millions of American victims scattered all across the Middle East.

Do they want to kill Americans?

Most likely many would love to.

So, unless you wish to see Americans killed yourself, I imagine you'd be against letting them in so they can have the opportunity.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Muslim extremists kill more Muslims than westerners. How indignant was the west when the approx same number of people were killed by IS suicide bombers in Turkey? Or the 43 dead in Lebanon? Or the 131 killed by the Saudis bombing a wedding in Yemen? Boko Haram massacred 2000 people in January.

Why should Muslims care more about western dead than their own? We don't.

Turkey? They're part of the problem.

Lebanon? Also basically controlled by the Islamists.

You do have a better case about Boko Haram but the government is part of the problem.

France, however, isn't funding the terrorists.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but my guess is that these victims, with the possible exception of the Nigerians, were not innocent, since their govts are problematic.

Which would mean that if we can demonstrate a govt policies vis a vis the ME as more destructive than constructive, then its citizens by definition cannot be innocent victims, and therefore shouldn't be mourned by westerners?

 

[untermensche]

All I know is that there are millions of American victims scattered all across the Middle East.

Do they want to kill Americans?

Most likely many would love to.

So, unless you wish to see Americans killed yourself, I imagine you'd be against letting them in so they can have the opportunity.

I'd say some acts of humanity would be the best thing to get many to not want to kill Americans.

 

[whichphilosophy]

My comment sailed over your head.

People are claiming that Muslims in general should be doing.......something......in response to violence from ISIS.

Why?

They have nothing to do with it.

Because they protested against cartoons, that's why.
There is profound difference in protest topic selection algorithms between westerner and these muslim people.

Just a quick glance and cut and paste will see there are a lot of Muslim condemnations

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11996902/i-am-a-muslim-paris-attacks-social-media.html
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/11/14/3722277/muslims-condemn-paris-attacks-pope-francis/


http://news.yahoo.com/irans-rouhani-brands-paris-attacks-crimes-against-humanity-054544578.html

Tehran (AFP) - Hassan Rouhani on Saturday postponed what would have been the first visit to Europe by an Iranian president in 10 years after attacks in Paris that he described as "crimes against humanity."
Rouhani had been due to hold talks in Rome on Saturday with Pope Francis as well as Italian counterpart Sergio Mattarella and Prime Minister Matteo Renzi before travelling on to the French capital.
"In the name of the Iranian people, who have themselves been victims of terrorism, I strongly condemn these crimes against humanity and offer my condolences to the grieving French people and government," Rouhani said.

http://qz.com/550104/muslims-around-the-world-condemn-terrorism-after-the-paris-attacks/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11996902/i-am-a-muslim-paris-attacks-social-media.html

"Not in my name" - Muslims speak out against Paris attacks conducted in the name of Islam
Muslim leaders from around the world have also condemned the attacks.
Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani has condemned the attacks, calling them a “crime against humanity”.
He said he would postpone his plan to visit France as part of a wider European trip this weekend.
Joko Widodo, the leader of Indonesia,which is the world’s most populous Muslim country has spoken out against the attacks.
He said his nation “condemns the violence that took place in Paris.”
In the UK, leader of the Muslim Council of Great Britain Dr Shuja Shafi, condemned the attacks “in the strongest possible terms,” labelling them “horrific and abhorrent”.
"My thoughts and prayers for the families of those killed and injured and for the people of France, our neighbours. This attack is being claimed by the group calling themselves 'Islamic State'.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/paris-atta...her-faiths-condemn-terrorist-violence-1529136
British Muslims have joined members of the Christian, Sikh and Jewish communities to show their solidarity with the victims of the terrorist attacks in Paris, in which 129 people were killed.
In a series of statements recorded by members of Britain's various religious communities and put together by IBTimes UK, religious leaders, students and believers read a moving statement that pledges the horrific attacks should serve to strengthen unity and tolerance amongst faiths

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/11/14/3722277/muslims-condemn-paris-attacks-pope-francis/

Muslim imams, scholars, commentators, and average Muslims expressed grief and horror using social media. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, an Islamic movement founded in British India in the 19th century, released a statement rebuking the “barbaric attacks.”
In Ireland, the Imam of the Al-Mustafa Islamic Centre and Chair of the Irish Muslim Peace & Integration Council, offered prayers for the victims and dismissed terrorist’s claims to Islam.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Sarcasm detection failed.

My comment sailed over your head.

People are claiming that Muslims in general should be doing.......something......in response to violence from ISIS.

Why?

They have nothing to do with it.

Muslims are condemning this.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Because they protested against cartoons, that's why.
There is profound difference in protest topic selection algorithms between westerner and these muslim people.

Just a quick glance and cut and paste will see there are a lot of Muslim condemnations

Ya, that's the point being made.

Some people draw some cartoons and you have thousands out in the streets yelling and protesting the insult to Islam. Innocent civilians are gunned down and you have official statements released and a bunch of tweets about the insult to Islam.

It's a notable difference in reaction.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Almost as stupid as all those Republican governors using this as a reason to reject Syrian refugees.

Well, yeah. We need to stop the Belgians, obviously.

Also, all the people you keep insisting want to kill us because of our history of interfering in their countries.

The Belgians are not at war with Napoleon. Anyway he died in 1821

 

[Jokodo]

Reading comprehension fail. There were protests across the country, not just the funeral demonstration.

Great, so where are their protests against french killing?

Repeating what I said in an earlier post (possibly edited in after your replied):

Exactly what do you expect? Do you expect that an Afghan or Syrian who's lost a friend or cousin to ISIS or the Taliban pretends that he's more angry about the French deaths than about his cousin lest we conclude that sympathises with the murderers of his cousin? How in the world is that a reasonable expectation?

 

[Jayjay]

Nor does inflating that particular number by factor of 5 or 10 really affect the original point, that there are public displays of muslim rage against e.g. cartoons that draw vastly bigger crowds than demonstrations against islamic terrorism.

When did these public outrages over drawings begin?

Was it before or after the US attacked Iraq and in the mind of many the Muslim world?

Yes. Tens of thousands of muslims protested against Salman Rushdie for example in the 80s.

 

[Jayjay]

Nor does inflating that particular number by factor of 5 or 10 really affect the original point, that there are public displays of muslim rage against e.g. cartoons that draw vastly bigger crowds than demonstrations against islamic terrorism.

Except it's not true. Since most victims of islamic terrorism are Muslims, it is little surprising that most rallies against islamic terrorism are also dominated by Muslim relatives of the victims.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-girl-prompted-huge-protests-in-afghanistan/
http://www.mintpressnews.com/thousa...al-for-victims-of-saudi-terror-attack/205949/

Or are you expecting seperate "muslim only" vigils in the West, for Western victims only? Why on earth? Muslims were among the victims in Paris, Muslims were among the rescue forces, Muslims were among the attendants at the vigils, how's that not good enough?

No, you are absolutely right and I was thinking exactly the same thing myself... the muslims in western countries do protest, but they protest together with the rest of the folks in show of unity, which is actually a decent thing to do.

But the specific counter-argument from inflated numbers of Grozny protests was still fallacious.

 

[barbos]

Great, so where are their protests against french killing?

Repeating what I said in an earlier post (possibly edited in after your replied):

Exactly what do you expect? Do you expect that an Afghan or Syrian who's lost a friend or cousin to ISIS or the Taliban pretends that he's more angry about the French deaths than about his cousin lest we conclude that sympathises with the murderers of his cousin? How in the world is that a reasonable expectation?

I expect (not really) EU specifically french muslims protests.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

1. By taking self-identification at face value, you're making a decision as to who a Muslim is. But why not also making an assessment about what Islam is?

The two are not mutually exclusive. It's just that in this case, the objective assessment of what reasonably qualifies as Islam is so broad that both the moderate muslim and ISIS dude would be covered. If there was someone who said he didn't believe in Quran, and didn't think Mohammed was a prophet, yet thought that he was a muslim, then we might have grounds to question his self-identification.

Of course the two are not mutually exclusive. My point is that you earlier said:

Who are non-muslims to judge what's Islam or not anyway?

One of my points here is that you (a non-Muslim) are making a decision about who is a Muslim. Why not also make a decision about what Islam is?

2. Whether the moderate self-identified Muslim needs to convince you or other self-identified Muslims depends on what they're trying to accomplish.

Correct. And in former case, I can't think of a very good reason.

Well, he might be trying to convince other people (perhaps, not you personally) that the nutjobs of IS and their ilk are misconstruing Islam. Perhaps, he intends to reduce the negative image of Islam among some social groups. That may not be a good reason (it's better to just point out how bad Islam actually is, even if the moderate fails to see that), but from his perspective, it would make perfect sense to try to persuade people who are not Muslims.

3. With regard to the epistemological high ground, I'm not sure how that works: why would a self-identified Sunni Muslim be in a better epistemological position than a self-identified former Muslim, or a self-identified atheist who has studied philosophy of religion, history of Islam and the Quran, to assess whether a Shia Muslim is a Muslim, or whether the Quran entails that thieves deserve to have a hand (or both) cut off, or some other thing you're thinking about?

Anyone who thinks that Quran has supernatural origins and trying to interpret it through that premise is already in realm of theology, and doesn't mean anything for anyone who doesn't accept the same premise.

But the question I was trying to ask is basically: why would the self-identified Muslim would have an epistemic high ground when it comes to ascertaining who's a Muslim and/or what Islam is and/or what the Quran entails?
Having an extra premise that is either false or not even false (namely, that the Quran has supernatural origins) does not the self-identified Muslim's epistemic position.
But now I see you've clarified your point. I will address your new point below.

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that the self-identified muslims have the "epistemological high ground". It's the opposite: they lack the high ground because they view certain issues through glasses of divine revelation rather than any objective criteria.

Alright, that makes sense.
However, I don't understand your previous replies in light of that clarification, for the following reasons:

At first, you questioned non-Muslims position to judge what's Islam or not, when you said "Who are non-muslims to judge what's Islam or not anyway?"
That expression looked like a moral assessment to me, but I asked, and also raised a challenge in case my interpretation was correct.
I said:

Are you suggesting that only Muslims are morally permitted to say what Islam is?
But then, who judges who is a Muslim?

Your reply was:

It's not about who has the moral high ground to judge other person's belief, but who has the epistemological high ground. Muslim A who thinks muslim B is not really a muslim is usually just making a religious statement that is meaningless outside the context of Muslim A's belief system. But at the same time muslims B might just as strongly feel the opposite, again in context of his own belief system. What's a person outside those belief systems to do? At best, we can take their self-identification at face value and agree that they are both muslims because they think they are.

To put it another way, it's not me that the moderate muslim needs to convince about what Islam is or isn't. That's a theological dispute and to an atheist about as relevant as how many angels can dance on a head of a pin.

So, your claim was epistemic, not moral.
But then again, in the context of your challenge to non-Muslims (i.e., "Who are non-muslims to judge what's Islam or not anyway?"), an epistemic challenge only makes sense is your claim is that Muslims are in a better epistemic position to assess what Islam is. If you hold that people who view certain issues through the glass of [alleged] divine revelation lacl the epistemic high ground (and you're correct about that, all other things equal), then the epistemic challenge "Who are non-muslims to judge what's Islam or not anyway?" has the following answer:
"Non-Muslims are people whose capability to assess what Islam is has not been degraded by their false belief in Islamic divine revelation. Some non-Muslims also don't have that capability degraded by beliefs in any other divine revelation"

I get that when one is posting very quickly to fight one's adversaries, sometimes one might lose track of some parts of the exchange, but it seems to me you should drop this particular line of argument.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd say that except in absurdly extreme cases which don't actually exist (ie - "I am a muslim because that's the best way to worship Vishnu"), anyone who self-identifies as a Muslim can be considered a Muslim.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I did not suggest you are lying. What I wrote is that maybe you already knew something in regard to a question or answer you put forward. That does not logically mean I called you a liar.

You said you suspected I knew my question was not using self-identification properly. But I'm saying clearly that there is nothing wrong, improper, mistaken, etc., about any of the questions I have asked.

But okay, let's go back to my question:

Back to your question:

3. With regard to the epistemological high ground, I'm not sure how that works: why would a self-identified Sunni Muslim be in a better epistemological position than a self-identified former Muslim, or a self-identified atheist who has studied philosophy of religion, history of Islam and the Quran, to assess whether a Shia Muslim is a Muslim, or whether the Quran entails that thieves deserve to have a hand (or both) cut off, or some other thing you're thinking about?

As I've already pointed out Jayjay did not say that he will accept a "Sunni Muslim['s]" self-identification as some method "to assess whether a Shia Muslim is a Muslim." That isn't how an atheist trying to be unbiased would use self-identification at all. In fact, in context of what Jayjay wrote the question does not make sense.

Actually, while Jayjay did not say that, he made comments that clearly implied he was using some means of assessing what Islam is, and I challenged his points with some other questions and rebuttals, but not with that one.
The question you're replying to raises a very different kind of challenge - namely, it challenges the claim that self-identified Muslims have an epistemic high ground.

Now, granted, Jayjay has now said that his claim wasn't that the self-identified Muslim has the epistemic high ground, but that in fact lacks it.
However, my earlier interpretation of his claim (namely, that he was saying that the self-identified Muslim had the epistemic high ground) was the proper one, given the context of the exchange. Claiming in this context that the self-identified Muslim (or more precisely, anyone who believes in a supernatural origin of the Quran) lacks the epistemic high ground would make no sense, as my latest reply to Jayjay explains.

If you take a look at my exchange with Jayjay carefully, you should realize that my questions and objections were all proper.