Hate crimes against Muslims rise following Paris attacks

[cookee68]

You cant help the way people feel, just like many did not want this great rush of Muslims storming the country, call it refugees, or what ever you want, but the government does not listen to the people on the streets who are the ones that live around all this shit, and maybe its their way of getting people to listen, we have our own problems without adding others to that list, and when they say that, 1 or more of the terrorist was a refugee, that makes them feel even worse, I agree that many of the Muslims that live in the EU know of many radicals but choose to remain silent, maybe its time they started to speak up to, that helps mend relations, when people see others doing their bit as well.

[Lukecan]

This is why moderate Muslims should report terrorists as they are the ones who are left to face the public, I dont for one minute agree with attacking any one that is innocent, but not everybody is tolerant.

The thing is moderates and extremists usually don't hangout together. It's not us moderates job to report them, you have an intelligence agency don't you, its funded from your(taxpayers) money. Don't you think they should be of some basic use?

Do you think that if I know a couple of guys are going to rob a bank I shouldn't report it? I should leave it up to police "intelligence" to figure that out for themselves and take action to stop it?

My idea of a good citizen and good human being is someone who will step up and try to assure the safety of the general population. I think if someone knows that bad guys are up to something bad and he doesn't report it, he's the lowest of lowlife. How many "good" Muslims meet my definition of lowlifes?

Cheers.

While I agree with you, reporting people because you think they are "extremist" wont amount to anything.

Firstly just because they have radical views doesn't mean they'll go on a killing spree. Maybe 0,01% of radicals commit such acts, heck even less. And who will define extremism? In Europe there is rule of law, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Sure I'll report the person if he's planning to storm a concert hall. But I won't report a person just because they have hard line views about Islam, or any other religion for that matter.

Most of these people keep their evil thoughts to themselves, they only share it with you if they think you'll agree with them. One of the assailants was already on the watch list of the feds, and yet he managed to go to Syria twice without being interrupted. He was deported from Turkey to Belgium on suspicion of aiding ISIS, yet he still managed be the mastermind of the attack.

Encouraging people to snitch on one another is never a great idea, it will cause havoc and mistrust within the society. This should be the job of intelligence agencies, not the general population. These methods were employed in soviet russia, we all saw how that turned out.

And seriously whats the definition of a moderate, or an extremist? HEck he could be an extremist according to you if he prays 5 times a day. It's going to get tougher now that European leaders are encouraging one to snitch on another. ISIS just released a decree saying, "drink alcohol, visit nightclubs, act like a metalhead or rocker if you have to, disguise your look to avoid being detected".

Next thing you know we might have emos or goths storming concerts and saying allahu ekber.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Lukecan

[thaibeachlovers]

To be expected about time people started to fight back

Fight back?

"The most frequently targeted were women dressed in traditional Islamic attire"

Look, it's NOT ISLAMIC attire. It is cultural attire. Just because it happens to be worn mainly by Islamic women doesn't make it Islamic.

There is NO stricture in the Koran as to attire other than a woman should dress modestly, ie itsy bitsy bikinis are not acceptable, but long sleeved shirts are. It's not even mandatory to cover their hair. Just think how Buddhist women are supposed to dress at the temple and it's the same.

This BS interpretation of what is Islamic by ignorant westerners really makes me PO, as it just confuses everyone.

To be frank, if Islamic women don't want to be targeted, they should just wear "normal" clothes, but if they choose to walk around wearing a tent after a jihadist atrocity, then they should expect to be subject to unwanted attention.

[lovelomsak]

To be expected about time people started to fight back

Fight back?

"The most frequently targeted were women dressed in traditional Islamic attire"

Indeed, fight back against who? Attacking innocents makes them as radical as the people they despise.

The old days of turn the other cheek ,or 2 wrongs donot make a right are gone. When radicals kill innocent people now kill their inoccent see how it feels. Sure all the Muslims innocents who hide these radicals donot want to be targets well if a few get killed then they can feel our pain. Then may be they will stop helping the radicals when they suffer too. Their radicals kill innocents if people say we are just as bad then people are finding out war is hell whats new?

[NCC1701A]

nice to see a positive, feel good news story for a change.

[Linky]

To be expected about time people started to fight back

Fight back?

"The most frequently targeted were women dressed in traditional Islamic attire"

Indeed, fight back against who? Attacking innocents makes them as radical as the people they despise.

The old days of turn the other cheek ,or 2 wrongs donot make a right are gone. When radicals kill innocent people now kill their inoccent see how it feels. Sure all the Muslims innocents who hide these radicals donot want to be targets well if a few get killed then they can feel our pain. Then may be they will stop helping the radicals when they suffer too. Their radicals kill innocents if people say we are just as bad then people are finding out war is hell whats new?

Well if you think it is ok to kill innocent people then you cannot condemn extremist muslims.

[Linky]

Huh???? "People make generalisations based on what happened, based on the acts committed by a few individuals, which were not at all committed in the name of Islam" That is strange. I thought all Al Qaeda & IS atrocities were absolutely claimed by them and that was in fact the whole point of those two organizations. i.e. Committing them in the name of and for the glory of Allah.

PS. I agree with JRHolmesJr that these things will help confirm the radicalized that they will be doing the right thing. The Koran (old spelling) only allows Muslims to kill in self defense or in response to prior events. So it is always handy for them to have a continuing trickle of things to justify their continuous actions in "self defense." Some times it only takes a few cartoons or the visit of a cleric to a western country who then states that a country or culture is "godless, morally corrupt and full of devils & infidels." That's enough to start things off then all so many of the moderate Muslims we hear so much about jeer & boo when the Turkish government asked for a minute silence in respect for the Paris dead at the Turkey - Greece football game last week.. The news paper reports didn't say that it sounded like only a few (7%) of the stadium booing.

"The Koran (old spelling) only allows Muslims to kill in self defense or in response to prior events." I am confused; is this sarcasm or a statement? Really? Because it is not correct if a declaration. This would be the kind of citation that would upturn some very core things I think are true. If you could actually provide the citation and context I genuinely would love to read it. It is my understanding that this is totally incorrect. Remember, the koran hadith and life of the prophet have their context in the exegesis or islamic jurisprudence, where it is not otherwise emphatic. The injunctions and interpretations have pretty much been decided long ago. If there was some injunction as this above it would be so important for someone like me to have it. It would invite me to rethink many things. Thank you.

No it is not true. The Koran only allows killing when it is state sanctioned, as in death penalty. Any other killing of a person is regarded the same as killing all humanity.

[vogie]

Yasser Louati said he had been inundated with reports and complaints including one Muslim woman saying she had been rammed by a shopping trolley,

Yesterday, I accidentally bumped the woman in front of me with my shopping cart at Tops. I guess I'm guilty of an anti-Buddhist hate crime.

Well done you for only bumping her and not ramming her!

[shirtless]

This is why moderate Muslims should report terrorists as they are the ones who are left to face the public, I dont for one minute agree with attacking any one that is innocent, but not everybody is tolerant.

The thing is moderates and extremists usually don't hangout together. It's not us moderates job to report them, you have an intelligence agency don't you, its funded from your(taxpayers) money. Don't you think they should be of some basic use?

So what you are saying is they dont need to report terrorists as our government security services will get them any way and good Muslims dont mix with the bad , So not one person in their community had any inkling they were up to no good , You live in a strange world.

[bangon04]

Fight back?

"The most frequently targeted were women dressed in traditional Islamic attire"

Look, it's NOT ISLAMIC attire. It is cultural attire. Just because it happens to be worn mainly by Islamic women doesn't make it Islamic.

There is NO stricture in the Koran as to attire other than a woman should dress modestly, ie itsy bitsy bikinis are not acceptable, but long sleeved shirts are. It's not even mandatory to cover their hair. Just think how Buddhist women are supposed to dress at the temple and it's the same.

This BS interpretation of what is Islamic by ignorant westerners really makes me PO, as it just confuses everyone.

To be frank, if Islamic women don't want to be targeted, they should just wear "normal" clothes, but if they choose to walk around wearing a tent after a jihadist atrocity, then they should expect to be subject to unwanted attention.

The Muslim majority is silent, and we must assume that the majority would be happy enough to have an Islamic state with Sharia Law. Muslim women in "democratic" countries still vote for increasing the power of the radicals. The same logic that teenage girls use to run away to be comfort women for IS. The turkeys are voting for Xmas.

The cultural attire is a symptom of the refusal to adapt or assimilate. That is what scares the ignorant westerners. People are afraid of things they do not understand. It is difficult to understand why Muslim women with a vote would continue to vote for subservience, child rape, FGM, polygamy, and being the possession of their fathers until they are sold to their husbands.

[Linky]

Fight back?

"The most frequently targeted were women dressed in traditional Islamic attire"

Look, it's NOT ISLAMIC attire. It is cultural attire. Just because it happens to be worn mainly by Islamic women doesn't make it Islamic.

There is NO stricture in the Koran as to attire other than a woman should dress modestly, ie itsy bitsy bikinis are not acceptable, but long sleeved shirts are. It's not even mandatory to cover their hair. Just think how Buddhist women are supposed to dress at the temple and it's the same.

This BS interpretation of what is Islamic by ignorant westerners really makes me PO, as it just confuses everyone.

To be frank, if Islamic women don't want to be targeted, they should just wear "normal" clothes, but if they choose to walk around wearing a tent after a jihadist atrocity, then they should expect to be subject to unwanted attention.

The Muslim majority is silent, and we must assume that the majority would be happy enough to have an Islamic state with Sharia Law. Muslim women in "democratic" countries still vote for increasing the power of the radicals. The same logic that teenage girls use to run away to be comfort women for IS. The turkeys are voting for Xmas.

The cultural attire is a symptom of the refusal to adapt or assimilate. That is what scares the ignorant westerners. People are afraid of things they do not understand. It is difficult to understand why Muslim women with a vote would continue to vote for subservience, child rape, FGM, polygamy, and being the possession of their fathers until they are sold to their husbands.

You obviously know nothing about muslims. Dont let the facts prejudice your bias

[arjunadawn]

To be expected about time people started to fight back

Fight back?

"The most frequently targeted were women dressed in traditional Islamic attire"

Look, it's NOT ISLAMIC attire. It is cultural attire. Just because it happens to be worn mainly by Islamic women doesn't make it Islamic.

There is NO stricture in the Koran as to attire other than a woman should dress modestly, ie itsy bitsy bikinis are not acceptable, but long sleeved shirts are. It's not even mandatory to cover their hair. Just think how Buddhist women are supposed to dress at the temple and it's the same.

This BS interpretation of what is Islamic by ignorant westerners really makes me PO, as it just confuses everyone.

To be frank, if Islamic women don't want to be targeted, they should just wear "normal" clothes, but if they choose to walk around wearing a tent after a jihadist atrocity, then they should expect to be subject to unwanted attention.

This made me smile in its brutal accuracy. Yes, you are spot on. It is cultural; if someone can show me the koranic injunction or otherwise I would change my observation. The burka et al is primarily a cultural evolution that found its protection in the modern age (to insinuate into the Western world) by the powerful protective amulet called "Religion;" the universal claim to ward of circumspection. However, the reasons underlying this are actually quite misogynist, however true followers hold it to be. The angel Gabriel would not speak to the prophet because his wife was located in the room and was not covered. From this pearl it evolved that the state of women in relation to godliness, or beloved of god, would then be a covered state. Variously, other faiths also debase women equally- just to be clear.

An even absurder example can be found in this development- see link. Personally, I think the example I offer is extreme, but it most certainly is the same line of reasoning to provide the cover for action to make the female covering a protective symbol. Lost in translation for such efforts is that the burka/hijab or even colander are not articles of faith, they are articles of clothing added later. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/14/pastafarian-woman-gets-to-wear-strainer-on-head-in-license-photo/

[katana]

Huh???? "People make generalisations based on what happened, based on the acts committed by a few individuals, which were not at all committed in the name of Islam" That is strange. I thought all Al Qaeda & IS atrocities were absolutely claimed by them and that was in fact the whole point of those two organizations. i.e. Committing them in the name of and for the glory of Allah.

PS. I agree with JRHolmesJr that these things will help confirm the radicalized that they will be doing the right thing. The Koran (old spelling) only allows Muslims to kill in self defense or in response to prior events. So it is always handy for them to have a continuing trickle of things to justify their continuous actions in "self defense." Some times it only takes a few cartoons or the visit of a cleric to a western country who then states that a country or culture is "godless, morally corrupt and full of devils & infidels." That's enough to start things off then all so many of the moderate Muslims we hear so much about jeer & boo when the Turkish government asked for a minute silence in respect for the Paris dead at the Turkey - Greece football game last week.. The news paper reports didn't say that it sounded like only a few (7%) of the stadium booing.

"The Koran (old spelling) only allows Muslims to kill in self defense or in response to prior events." I am confused; is this sarcasm or a statement? Really? Because it is not correct if a declaration. This would be the kind of citation that would upturn some very core things I think are true. If you could actually provide the citation and context I genuinely would love to read it. It is my understanding that this is totally incorrect. Remember, the koran hadith and life of the prophet have their context in the exegesis or islamic jurisprudence, where it is not otherwise emphatic. The injunctions and interpretations have pretty much been decided long ago. If there was some injunction as this above it would be so important for someone like me to have it. It would invite me to rethink many things. Thank you.

No it is not true. The Koran only allows killing when it is state sanctioned, as in death penalty. Any other killing of a person is regarded the same as killing all humanity.

See the video below for why that's not true. The quote (Verse 32) from the Koran "killing of a person is regarded the same as killing all humanity" is taken out of context and was only ordained by Allah for the conduct of the Jews. The next verse 33 applies to Muslims and urges anyone who commits the vague offence of making 'mischief' against Muslims to be killed.

Edited November 25, 2015 by katana

[Linky]

Katana, hadiths cannot over rule the korans tenet of not killing.

[DM07]

To be expected about time people started to fight back

Fight back?

"The most frequently targeted were women dressed in traditional Islamic attire"

Indeed, fight back against who? Attacking innocents makes them as radical as the people they despise.

The old days of turn the other cheek ,or 2 wrongs donot make a right are gone. When radicals kill innocent people now kill their inoccent see how it feels. Sure all the Muslims innocents who hide these radicals donot want to be targets well if a few get killed then they can feel our pain. Then may be they will stop helping the radicals when they suffer too. Their radicals kill innocents if people say we are just as bad then people are finding out war is hell whats new?

" When radicals kill innocent people now kill their inoccent see how it feels."

This most be one of the dumbest, most vile comments, I have read in a very long time!

And I won't even give you the "an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind"- speech!

Just explain, how do you set yourself apart from those radicals, if you do the exactly the same thing?

What makes your "killing of innocent" more just or justified then theirs?

Seriously, dude!

[arjunadawn]

Katana, hadiths cannot over rule the korans tenet of not killing.

Why of course they can. Because you pull some pie in the sky concept and drop it down does not remotely make it correct. This evidences a fundamental lapse of awareness. The koran is chronological though organized by the size of sura. As chronologically it corresponds roughly with the sayings and life of the prophet text. The ridiculous verse qouted above is always cited by people who either do not know better or are intentionally deceitful; I am sure it is the former here. I did not see the video above but I am pretty certain he keyed on that this verse applies to the property of muslims, jews specifically. In the rigid social caste of islam jews of course could not kill without license from those who could kill. This verse absolutely 100% never applies[d] to muslims. The rules for muslims are clearly and otherwise expressed. Should someone read the actual context of this verse and its application it cannot be said to apply to muslims, nor do muslims apply it to themselves- nor has any in history is asserted it applied to muslims.

But more importantly is that where islam has any contradictory information in either the life or sayings of the prophet or the koran abrogation must replaces it. Thus, even if sura 3 did apply to muslims it would categorically be replaced by later sura 9 verses which are wholly opposite and call for pretty much just killing. Indeed, the sword verse is the most often cited justification for murder for over 1,400 years. The prophet made clear that Al Lah has the right to change his mind and whenever something he says conflicts with an earlier statement the later one shall take precedence and supersede it. Why? Because islam was weak in the beginning and powerful in the end. With this rule in place, the prophet died while islam was militarily powerful, leaving the standing mandate for all time.

The sura above does not apply to muslims. Note: The koran has nothing that could be called a tenet for not killing- no where.

Edited November 26, 2015 by arjunadawn