Extremist Cleric and suspected MI5 Asset, Anjem Choudary: Charlie Hebdo Cover is an "Act of War"

a reply to: SkepticOverlord
I don't know S.O. I'm still trying to figure out if this was
a F.F. operation, or an act of violence by radical Muslim's.

If it was a false flag, well, I guess we can expect to see the first
amendment attacked here also (which sickens me) but we should
stick to our guns as well as other freedom loving citizens of other
countries like France, and I support their decision to keep printing
and publishing. The magazine may increase in popularity world
wide. That would definitely send a clear message to those attempting
to manipulate our freedoms.

If it wasn't a false flag operation I still support their decision not only
to keep making fun of Islam but increase the number of copies (I think
its three million copies of the newest magazine). Absolutely awesome,
this will show Radical Muslim's that reacting in this violent and criminal
way is NOT going to get them want they want; the exact opposite.
Great question SkepticOverloard.

Rebel 5

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

This article about Choudary and general attitudes towards him is worth a read
www.theguardian.com...

I will say this - the fact he gets so much air time is either stupidity by the media who don't realise what they are doing OR, orchestrated to paint as negative picture as possible.

Unless the cartoon directly says the picture is that of Mohammed the Prophet in writing, it's just a cartoon figure.

An artist could make a stone sculpture of a pig and say that it's a sculpture of the prophet. Most people with common sense would just see that it is a carving of a pig, but there would always some hothead who'll take that as a real insult.

originally posted by: stormcell
Unless the cartoon directly says the picture is that of Mohammed the Prophet in writing, it's just a cartoon figure.

An artist could make a stone sculpture of a pig and say that it's a sculpture of the prophet. Most people with common sense would just see that it is a carving of a pig, but there would always some hothead who'll take that as a real insult.

Yes, indeed, a random character wearing a turban and a beard could be just that : a dude with turban and beard.

Now, come on, there's context here to help you figure who the character is. You know, I know, everybody knows. One would be intellectually dishonest to pretend he's not entirely certain who the character is...

One of the wonders of arts, literature and satire : implying is more than enough. Only kids would need a big "IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED THIS IS MAHOMET" sign. We're grownups and know what's the story is about.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: SkepticOverlord


Will you take Choudary as well, please Skeptic

And Abu-baraa too.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I really don't like this 'Anjem' bloke. I wish he would get 'taken' out.

He is a loony and loony is what loony does.

As others have said though, there are plenty of 'Radicals' who listen to him.

originally posted by: buster2010
They should toss this hate mongering nutcase back into prison before he starts getting people killed. And while he is in prison give a Qur'an and make him read it because he really doesn't seem to know it that well. The reason why I say this because if he did know the Qur'an then he would know that Mohammed himself said “If you kill one life, it’s like you kill the whole of humanity. When you save one life, it’s like you save the whole of humanity”. So any real Muslim including Mohammed would weep for those that died that day.

I doubt that would work. That's like giving small Bush the bible and telling him "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not steal".
I mean, the hatred and stupidity of these sort of individuals is hard coded into their tiny brains. These sort of people will continue to invade countries for lies or blow up markets. They should be locked up and left to rot.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Giving publicity to people like Anjem Choudary is the real kicker...

I think people like him come along every decade or so with some sort of Mahdi-Complex...
He hasn't stated as much, but it wouldn't surprised me if he had those feelings.


Is there an article that relates to the cover, or a statement from Hebdo saying that's definitely Muhammad...

I just see a Muslim to be honest.





& all that bulls# aside, I believe Muhammad would be tearful at the acts being committed by people claiming his & Allahs name.

It #ing breaks my heart, I can't imagine how Muhammad would be feeling.

Anjem Choudary is a known shill outside of his area he has little influence and is very much despised by Muslim communities up and down the UK and for obvious reason.

I have always asked why does he get so much air time when it is obvious he is a narrow minded bigot who promotes whatever idiotic and dangerous views he has at the time. He does not speak for the majority of Muslims in the UK regardless of what he claims but I blame the media for promoting an obvious shill who wants his limelight and shovel any garbage to make the headlines.

People like him are not dangerous but their ideology promoted by the media is and when that ideology is open to interpretation by anyone without question you get people with very misguided beliefs.

The world is in a tragic state at the moment but what is more tragic is the free for all statements and ideas that are rising up, fascists xenophobic views that think its okay to blanket label and accuse an entire group of people based on their religion - often being so ignorant they mix race with religion with demographics and culture.

The decision to publish the cartoons is not about expressing freedom of speech so much as freedom to hate via a medium such as the publication (by a German magazine no less)...This is just outright incitement, forget that it is offending Muslims but think about it from a common sense point of view...why cause anger and more divisions between people is that really freedom of speech or freedom to be an arsehole?

Were we to switch the subject matter and do the same to the Jewish people and/or Israel, a cartoon no less we would not hear the end of it with cries of antisemitism all over the media for days on end. If the Jewish people have the right defend their beliefs and people why can't others?

We as people have lost our morality and basic respect of each other and life in general where its much easier to hate and do it in such an ignorant manner that reading and listening to some of the statements leaves one both shocked and amazement at the stupidity of some people.

Always the most tragic part in any of this is the loss of life and not matter is said or done, no matter how many liberties are destroyed by new laws we can't get those lives back and that is something we should all feel responsible for, as human beings.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

It's more pot stirring. Dig deep for the political agendas here. Using the cleric to proclaim outrage and fan the flames of this utterly insane MSM topic pushes us closer to what the real agenda is.

Besides, how does that idiot cleric know what the Muhammad really looks like? For all we know that's a picture of some random radical Muslim guy.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

More controversy regarding the Prophet? Who would have thought!

I'm split on this issue. On the one hand, I think religions who take themselves too seriously are not only ridiculous and missing the point - but ridiculously dangerous. So I think exposing sheltered close-minded individuals to their phobias and unhealthy fears is a good thing, because it encourages change, discussion and reanalysis of an old and often undisturbed subject/habit.

On the other hand... yeah, I can see this as an act of war. Against extremists. Who started the war. So screw them, right? After all, I don't know about everyone else, but I'm a big fan of human freedom - and so I don't want to live in a world where it's a capital offense to draw cartoons of our leaders - spiritual or otherwise.

But it does beg the question - how far is too far? Where is the line? Because they blow us up and gun us down, and we draw cartoons. I struggle to see how we're the problem here - but I do understand the significance of this antagonization. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what these crazy #holes will do next in retaliation to this rather benign 'offense' (from our perspective at least - what is benign to us is clearly a big deal to an extremist. How miserable their lives must be!).

Peace, and good luck France. I have a feeling you're gonna need it

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
London-based extremist Cleric (and suspected MI5 asset), Anjem Choudary, who often advocates violence against the west, has said the new Charlie Hebdo cover depicting a teary-eyed Prophet Mohammed as "extremely serious" and an "act of war." He added that the cartoon cover is "attack the honor of the Prophet," and if tried in Sharia court, would bring the verdict of capital punishment. Choudary continued, calling the cover a "blatant provocation" and part of an ongoing war against Muslims and Islam.

www.independent.co.uk

Most have already seen it, but here's the new cover...

Anjem Choudary was arrested four months ago as part of UK counter-terrorism investigations, but later let out on bail. He founded the al-Muhajiroun network, classified by the west as a terrorist organization.

Knowing his background and influence in the extremist circles, many are concerned that more attacks are on the horizon.

ATS… what do you think? Is the west taking the typical opportunist approach and seizing the opportunity to trade liberties for freedom. Or do the rumors of a potential False Flag have merit -- where western governments needed a new excuse to increase police state operations.

Whether or not Choudary is an MI5 asset, I don't know. I'm glad he's being given a larger public platform to speak. The public (woefully naive about Islam) needs to know that Islam is out of the Dark Ages (7th century AD) and that the Islamic Fundamentalists want nothing less than world conquest as Muhammad did.

It's against Islamic law to create an image of Muhammad. Period.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I don't think Charlie Hebdo really had much of an option. They either had to give in to terrorism and not print the magazine or they print it up with Mohammed on the cover and show extremist Islam that their BS doesn't work. All it did is cause solidarity in the community.

I know how offensive depictions of Mohammed are to all Muslims but I think they should just roll with the punches so to speak, just to show that not all Muslims support extremist behavior and that tolerance, even of those things that offend you, is always an option. A better one than violence.

It's against Islamic law to create any image of Muhammad (especially the face). Now they have to kill the artist. I've seen very old paintings depicting Muhammad with his face veiled.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
He added that the cartoon cover is "attack the honor of the Prophet," and if tried in Sharia court, would bring the verdict of capital punishment

Which is fantastic, if you happen to have this happen in a country that has Sharia law as it's main governing platform. Since France is not under Sharia Law, the best this dude can do is whine a bit.-

I am not religious, but do believe in God and it OFFENDS me when people talk about killing others for not believing the same as they do. Now that this is out in the open, I think some might call this a stalemate. I'll go on being offended and this dude can do the same.

Smile, Allah loves you.

In the "No-go zones" Sharia laws take precedence over the civil laws of the land. This is one of the major problems Europe is having with the Muslims.

Allah may be smiling, but Muhammad would not be (if he were alive).

Muhammad had a poet killed for making fun of Muhammad. Not a great sense of humor.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Giving publicity to people like Anjem Choudary is the real kicker...

I think people like him come along every decade or so with some sort of Mahdi-Complex...
He hasn't stated as much, but it wouldn't surprised me if he had those feelings.


Is there an article that relates to the cover, or a statement from Hebdo saying that's definitely Muhammad...

I just see a Muslim to be honest.





& all that bulls# aside, I believe Muhammad would be tearful at the acts being committed by people claiming his & Allahs name.

It #ing breaks my heart, I can't imagine how Muhammad would be feeling.

Muhammad would probably be slapping the murdering Jihadists on their backs for "defending his honor."

It's against Islamic law to create an image of Muhammad.

Muhammad had a poet killed for making fun of him.

In 627 AD, "The Jewish tribe of Qurayza raided by Muhammad, some 700-800 Jewish men beheaded (only one Jew abjuring his religion to save his life) and all the women and children sold as slaves."

Taken from the Introduction to "The Koran" translated by N.J Dawood (Iraqi Muslim and Arabic scholar, London University).

originally posted by: buster2010
They should toss this hate mongering nutcase back into prison before he starts getting people killed. And while he is in prison give a Qur'an and make him read it because he really doesn't seem to know it that well. The reason why I say this because if he did know the Qur'an then he would know that Mohammed himself said “If you kill one life, it’s like you kill the whole of humanity. When you save one life, it’s like you save the whole of humanity”. So any real Muslim including Mohammed would weep for those that died that day.

That quote is taken from “The Table” in the Qur’an and should be read in it’s fuller context to get the proper flavor:

“Cain’s soul prompted him to slay his brother, he killed him and thus became one of the lost. Then Allah sent down a raven, which dug the earth to show Cain how to bury the naked corpse of this brother.”

“ ’Alas’ Cain cried, ‘Have I not strength enough to do as this raven has done and so bury my brother’s naked corpse?’ And Cain repented.

“That is why We (Muslims) laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or OTHER WICKED CRIMES (the list is long), should be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life should be regarded as though he had saved all mankind….”

“Those that make war against Allah and His apostle (Muhammad) and spread disorders in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country….”

“As for unbelievers (in Muhammad), if they offered all that the earth contains and as much besides to redeem themselves from the torment of the Day of Resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them. Theirs shall be a woeful punishment. They shall strive to get out of Hell, but they shall not: theirs shall be a lasting punishment.”

“As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands to punish them for their crimes. That is the punishment enjoined by Allah. He is mighty and wise….”

“Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their member. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers (Jews or Christians and Muslims who befriend them).”

This context should give the reader a more accurate appreciation of a much quoted (cherry-picked) quote from the Qur’an.

Muhammad’s Allah was even more “Hellfire & brimstone” than the Old Testament God of the Jews.

a reply to: AuranVector

There is no introduction to the Quran... Not the two I've got anyways.

That's a man made addition to the Chapters it sounds.


Also the Quran does not say we cannot produce a picture of Muhammad...
It's just frowned upon by some so it doesn't lead to Idol Worship.

originally posted by: HumanPLC
Im saddened, and if im honest, a bit embarrased, that my country, (the UK) have chosen not to show this image in their mainstream media. I thought we as a country had a bit bigger kahoonas than this.

No matter how much you try to understand the reasons behind this; you cant deny, its not freedom of speech.

For your future reference, the Spanish word is spelled cojones (ko ho' nays) with both 'o's having a long 'oh' sound.

Yes, I agree with you. Without our freedom of speech, the Islamic Fundamentalists have won.

It is against Islamic law to criticize Muhammad or his Qur'an, or to create images of Muhammad, or for a Muslim to leave Islam, etc. Islam is all about controlling people with FEAR. Which is why it's so useful to TPTB. TPTB really don't care which brand of totalitarianism they use to control the people.

Islam is so useful for creating Endless War: once the non-Muslims realize just how evil Islam is, they have no choice but to fight against it.

Unless they want to submit to Islam to save their lives. (Not that this really works that well, Muslims kill other Muslims frequently for belonging to the wrong brand of Islam).

It amuses me to think of the Liberal Leftist Islamic apologists under Sharia, considering how Islam treats Gays and anyone who's different. Women are little more than livestock under Sharia.

Its quite simple for me. Choudary's views are completely reprehensible but he has exactly the same rights to air them as everyone else does - it is part of the "freedom" that we are all espousing.

To deny him the platform makes his case for him. Whereas to allow him to spout his drivel shows him up for the numb nuts that he really is.

I don't even get mad at him these days when i see him on tv, he just makes melaugh with his seriously flawed and spurious arguments. He is even occasiobnally on early morning Sunday tv over here on shows like "The Big Question". That is usually really funny because you generally get him quoting the Quran and then loads of Imams and Scholars telling him how he has made up or distorted what he is typically spouting. It then usually descends into him shouting over the top of everyone else - yes, he does the 5 year old thing of fingers in ears and "la la la i can't hear you".

Basically though, you do not stop this type of hatred based on his belief system by outloawing it. You defeat it by confronting it and showing the error of its ways.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: AuranVector

There is no introduction to the Quran... Not the two I've got anyways.

That's a man made addition to the Chapters it sounds.


Also the Quran does not say we cannot produce a picture of Muhammad...
It's just frowned upon by some so it doesn't lead to Idol Worship.

A "man made" addition to the Chapters? It's a condensed timeline (put together by Dawood) of the most important events in Muhammad's life.

It seems you're not familiar with the massacre at Qurayza. Not surprising.

Take a look at "Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet" by Karen Armstrong. It's been praised by Muslim scholars as a "sympathetic" and fair bio of Muhammad.

Muhammad had 700 Jewish men beheaded for refusing to accept him as "The True Prophet of God."
Then he sold their women & children into slavery.

I just realized I didn't address the image issue. It's not from the Qur'an, but one of the Hadiths. Muhammad himself forbade people to create images of him. Fear of idolatry.