So much the better if she's female I imagine.

Paris events are painful. Every one is saddened at loss of life and wants to know the facts,and for that, one can ride the band wagon of the likes of Murdoch and paddle their version or one can, as every one should, dig deep, find facts, reflect and form a considered opinion.
I shared the heroic role of Muslims in the tragic events. Sorry, I missed mentioning Ahmed, the Muslim Policeman who lost his life while protecting the magazine.
The same event looks different from different points of view ; 1) of a Muslim hater and 2) a fair human being. Here is my assessment:-

It is not about freedom of speech. It is that west is exposing it's double standards:-

Charlie Hebdo sacked the veteran French cartoonist Maurice Sinet in 2008 for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark?

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published caricatures of the Prophet in 2005, reportedly rejected cartoons mocking Christ because they would "provoke an outcry" and proudly declared it would "in no circumstances... publish Holocaust cartoons"?

There is the widespread discrimination going on in Germany and Italy, against Muslims in education, employment and public life - especially in France. Muslims are asked to denounce a handful of extremists as an existential threat to free speech while a blind eye is turned to the much bigger threat to it posed by the elected leaders.

Barack Obama - who demanded that Yemen keep the anti-drone journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye behind bars, after he was convicted on "terrorism-related charges" in a kangaroo court - jumps on the free speech band wagon?

Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of a country that was responsible for the killing of seven journalists in Gaza in 2014, attend the "unity rally" in Paris?

Angela Merkel, chancellor of a country where Holocaust denial is punishable by up to five years in prison, and David Cameron, who wants to ban non-violent "extremists" committed to the "overthrow of democracy" from appearing on television.

May we retain the ability to see the truth and live by it, in the interesting times we are living in, amen

McAdam/NC,

Yes, as you say,

"May we retain the ability to see the truth and live by it, in the interesting times we are living in, ..... "

And as one says at the end of Jewish prayers:

" ..... amen."

In something like that spirit, I wish more people would acquaint themselves with the religion of peace:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

On the issue of Islamist morality, or the total lack of it: what religion recruits murderers by promising them that if they kill a non-believer - any non-believer, it doesn't really matter - they can get as many young women as they like to root, all day, every day, forever ?

What, 72 is not enough ?

Joe

McAdam/NC

Do you think it's okay to kill people who don't agree with your religious opinion?

DEMOCRACY AND ITS GUARDIAN (1of 2)

The secularism (Oxford Dictionary) is “the view that morality and education should not be based on religion”. Narrower versions of this definition are there.

A society adopting secularism expresses its “RIGHT” to choose, but when it insists that no other society must look towards religion (the first source of moral principles for humanity) for moral principles, it is its “ARROGANCE”. And this ‘arrogance’ is what I question in this post.

Yes, Ali Abdul Raziq is one of many (yes, MANY and it may be a discovery for Luciferase) who addressed the political system in a Muslim country in the wake of abrogation of Khilafat (in 1920s) and more importantly with the freedom from colonial bonds in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

They emphasize the injunction of “mutual consultation” (Quran 42:38, one example) in running affairs (including governance), the fact that Muhammad did not nominate his successor for governance (apparently knowing that the people he trained were capable of electing one) and the ELECTIONS of the first four Khalifas (another surprise for Luciferase – now he may wonder why their voting system was not same as that of a modern state).

The society of that time could not permanently overcome the tribal impulses and reverted to hereditary succession keeping the name “Khalifa” for common acceptance. However, the principles of mutual consultation and establishment of social justice are preserved in history for a thinking mind of the present day.

Khalifas, after the first four, were pretty much kings and ruled quite like kings. Ottomans did the same, starting with King Saleem turned Khalifa Saleem in early 16th century.

The second emphasis of the Muslim scholars is on the lack of religious sanction for the so called ‘office’ of Khalifa. There is nothing in Quran or in what Muhammad did (according to many, including my little search) that can assign sanctity or permanence to this office. The sanctity is, of course claimed, by a fringe and by the likes of IS which now appears to be distancing itself from its originators.

Continued …

Continued …

DEMOCRACY AND ITS GUARDIAN (2of 2)

The fact remains that there is no overt or covert effort from the political parties or the institutions of all Muslim countries to revert to Khilafat. (An example: historically, all religious political parties combined have won no more that 5% of the seats of the National Assembly in Pakistan, and you don’t see any of them working for the restoration of Khilfat. Same is true of most Muslim countries, barring residuals of the colonial era propped up by you know who – societies themselves cannot be absolved of their responsibilities for this failure)

Yes, a debate is on in Muslim societies, of which Luciferase knows only a little, but tries to make sweeping statements that he made on Pakistan affairs as pages of this thread would show.

The question is what is wrong with a debate? Is it not part of the process leading to a collective decision?

A more important question is that of time. European societies took centuries to evolve their systems. The demand from Muslims is to do it immediately (after their re-birth in the post-colonial era) or be condemned for ever. Is it justified?

And even more basic question: Is the western democratic system the ONLY workable democratic model for the entire world?

If Luciferase is the only guardian of democracy (sorry, secular democracy), why does he not enforce that on China?

Chinese system has evolved since pre-Mao time to present. It is functioning and still evolving, and you bet, it is NOT Luciferase’s secular democracy. And it is highly likely that its future evolved shape will still differ from that of the west.

Understand that societies differ. The current shape of western democracy has evolved out of its social outlook and habits.

Other societies can and will come up with the models of ‘mutual consultations’, including many Muslim countries, understandably different from each other but still workable in their own environment.

Give them time west took to mature its systems.