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

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat

I know how offensive depictions of Mohammed are to all Muslims...

From what I've heard, this isn't exactly true. Some interpretations choose to enforce a complete ban on depictions, others don't really care.

Just the same as Christianity, in fact. Roman Catholics and some Protestant denominations happily use statues and imagery depicting religious figures, while some other Protestant denominations consider this to be terrible and unacceptable idolatry.

And before anyone points out "ah yes, but Christians don't kill and destroy over this sort of thing" - yes, yes we did. Read up on the Iconoclastic Fury. Christianity has a long and glorious history of persecuting people for being the wrong kind of Christian, from both sides of the equation at different times.

We don't do that sort of thing now, outside of certain rather dubious sects in Africa where they still like to burn people alive "in the name of Christ", but this anger at imagery is not unique to Islam.

Someone once said that the fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam is not actually the beliefs, but the fact that Christianity grew up and moved forward.

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.

The world is an offensive place! Muslims need to get over it. The last time I saw s group of fundamentalists from any other religion blow anyone up was ..........still waiting. Lee as Anericans will look back on history in 50 years and ask ourselves why we ever let these people into our country. Their values and culture are completely antithetical to everything and anything we stand for. Weird thing is Muslims are probably slightly above atheists in our society as far as acceptance.

a reply to: AuranVector

Hmmmm I don't really trust many Muslim Scholars because they've always got their own additions to throw into the hat.

Events in Muhammad's life sounds more like a Hadith than the Quran.

Hadith are known to be man made allegedly with stories of Muhammad's life and due to them being man made and written long after Muhammad passed they are inherently untrustworthy.


The Quran is the word of God relayed by the Angel Gabriel, & it's a guidance tool...
It doesn't have much to do with events in Muhammad's life bar a few exceptions.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat

I know how offensive depictions of Mohammed are to all Muslims...

From what I've heard, this isn't exactly true. Some interpretations choose to enforce a complete ban on depictions, others don't really care.

Just the same as Christianity, in fact. Roman Catholics and some Protestant denominations happily use statues and imagery depicting religious figures, while some other Protestant denominations consider this to be terrible and unacceptable idolatry.

And before anyone points out "ah yes, but Christians don't kill and destroy over this sort of thing" - yes, yes we did. Read up on the Iconoclastic Fury. Christianity has a long and glorious history of persecuting people for being the wrong kind of Christian, from both sides of the equation at different times.

We don't do that sort of thing now, outside of certain rather dubious sects in Africa where they still like to burn people alive "in the name of Christ", but this anger at imagery is not unique to Islam.

Someone once said that the fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam is not actually the beliefs, but the fact that Christianity grew up and moved forward.

Excellent points. One of the fundamental differences between Christianity & Islam is the moral authority of the teachers: Jesus vs. Muhammad.

I can just hear the groans of protest if you're a Secularist or Atheist, that there's no proof that Jesus ever existed, etc. That's fine. I do not belong to any organized religion. People should be allowed to worship (or not worship if Atheist) as they see fit.

However, I have a real problem accepting a mass-murderer and pedophile as a "True Prophet of God."

Muhammad was about 50 years old when he spotted his favorite wife, Aisha. Aisha was six years old.
Aisha's father told Muhammad that Aisha was too young at age 6 for marriage. So Muhammad had to wait until Aisha was nine (9) years old before he could marry her.

Unfortunately, Muslims consider Muhammad to be their role model. This might help explain the pedaphilia and child prostitution in some Muslim communities.

Whether Jesus was a real man or merely a symbol of the perfect man, his teachings were different, far more loving and spiritual.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: AuranVector

Hmmmm I don't really trust many Muslim Scholars because they've always got their own additions to throw into the hat.

Events in Muhammad's life sounds more like a Hadith than the Quran.

Hadith are known to be man made allegedly with stories of Muhammad's life and due to them being man made and written long after Muhammad passed they are inherently untrustworthy.


The Quran is the word of God relayed by the Angel Gabriel, & it's a guidance tool...
It doesn't have much to do with events in Muhammad's life bar a few exceptions.

"The Quran is the word of God relayed by the Angel Gabriel, & it's a guidance tool..."

So Muhammad claimed ... that the angel Gabriel spoke to him. Certainly, you're free to believe that.

originally posted by: MiddleClassWhiteBoy

The world is an offensive place! Muslims need to get over it. The last time I saw s group of fundamentalists from any other religion blow anyone up was ..........still waiting.

Really? Because here in the UK we have a massive celebration on the 5th of November every year, remembering the time that one group of Christians tried to blow up a building full of another type Christian, so they could put the "right type of Christian" on the throne.

You might be surprised how Christians in the not-too-distant past seemed quite happy to kill each other in the name of Christ. Again, that was then, and Christianity has since grown up. Mostly.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
>>
ATS… what do you think?
>>

We live in the West which are not societies with Islamic law and rules. From that point of view, depicting Mohammed is not "insulting" anyone BUT those *who live in our society as guests* or those who CHOSE to live in our, western society as opposed to their Islamic home lands.

When you CHOSE to live in a society, you have to tolerate and accept their rules rather than demanding that your rules and your morale etc. is imposed on the society where you chose to live.

The Muslims who feel offended by whatever the West does which is supposed to go "against Islam" are welcome to live in their Islamic countries where those rules are strictly obeyed. There they won't have the problem that their faith is insulted or people live in ways they do not agree with, as simple as that. If people think it's so "difficult" to live here that things that happen in our society justify to kill 12 people...well get a plane ticket to the Middle East.

Very good post. Muhammad had an agenda. Those who accepted him as "The True Prophet of God" would enter the land of milk & honey and upon death would experience Paradise with 72 young virgin girls.

The Unbelievers, the Infidels who did not accept Muhammad as "The True Prophet of God" would be thrown into the firey pits of everlasting Hell upon death.

In life, Infidels (if allowed to live), would have a 2nd class citizenship in Islamic lands, forced to pay a tax to their Muslim overlords. Infidels would not be allowed to spread their religion, among other things.

Muhammad felt it important to convert the entire world to Islam, to ensure all would submit to the will of Allah according to Muhammad, to protect them from the everlasting flames of Hell (it's for their own good).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: iskander683
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

That utter clown choudhary thinks it's an "act of war"? Tell that to the families of those poor souls killed in Paris last week and the numerous other people affected. I am betting that they already believe that there is a war going on.

Choudhary is a loud mouthed, cowardly, inbred little weasel who still lives in the middle ages. What a clown.

Edit - apologies to any clowns reading this.

I've seen many describe Islam as "medieval" -- it's not. It's older than that, 7th century.

Islamic Fundamentalism is out of the Dark Ages.

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.

Actually, that verse from the q'uran is misquoted there.

Here is the correct version, in context


Quran 5:32

For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.



They were speaking to Jews, this in no way applied to muslims. In fact, even if it did, they left an out for them in there "for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth" A rather broad and general loophole open to interpretation by whomever chooses to use it.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

The Muslims who feel offended by whatever the West does which is supposed to go "against Islam" are welcome to live in their Islamic countries where those rules are strictly obeyed.

You seem to overlook that even though they stay in those nations the west still makes up excuses to attack them. Look at the Muslim nations that are being or have been attacked by the west even though they never attacked the west. the main problem is that religious fanatics are gaining power in governments in the west and they want to bring about the biblical end of times. They care nothing about how many people have to die to bring it about because they believe they will be saved.

This such a complex topic. We are all victims of TPTB. The majority of Muslims are simply people who want to be left alone to live their lives. The majority are not murdering sociopaths on violent Jihad. What is happening to those countries is something we cannot control. TPTB have their own plans.

On the other hand, Islam has always, from its inception, been bad news. It really is a "violent, totalitarian government disguised as a religion."

The situation has been created by TPTB where we must fight to preserve Western Civilization or let it be overrun by a system antithetical to everything we value.

We have been set up.

As for politicians herding us towards an End Times scenario, I don't think it's because they're Christian Fundamentalists. Politicians are such a cynical lot, they will use whatever serves their purposes.

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

The Muslims who feel offended by whatever the West does which is supposed to go "against Islam" are welcome to live in their Islamic countries where those rules are strictly obeyed.

You seem to overlook that even though they stay in those nations the west still makes up excuses to attack them. Look at the Muslim nations that are being or have been attacked by the west even though they never attacked the west. the main problem is that religious fanatics are gaining power in governments in the west and they want to bring about the biblical end of times. They care nothing about how many people have to die to bring it about because they believe they will be saved.

The point your are insinuating is that Christians are gaining power in western nations?

I don't see that, if anything it keeps getting more secular 'appearing'.

I think it only appears that way and that these powers DO follow a higher power, only it isn't Jesus.

I think they have their own end time scenario in mind.

I do believe ALL of it is a grand plan and we, the peons, are not meant to be the victors.

Excellent. This is how I see it as well.

Can't believe idiots truly believe these people are part of a globalist plan lol but you're entitled to your opinion don't kill me etc

They're mearly a problem that they... The governments/authority's upholding western values can't touch

How do you defend freedom of speech without killing it by locking these people up for speaking there minds?

That's the problem here, not overthought out wild fantasies & conspiracy's

Well actually... conspiracy's are half the problem here also



So what have we learnt today ATS?

Conspiracy's, freedom of speech, and ignorant morons are a potent mix

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."

For me I love that they published the cartoon, it shows right away that the mass population really do not like when these small groups of people think they can run around pointing fingers and expecting changes. It makes me happy that France to begin with refused Muslims the ability to wear Hijabs. (Makes me laugh I even knew to write its name. That shows how messed up things are.) I hope France continues to show this face of knowing that enough is enough. I never wanted to go to France but if they continue to show this great against nature they are showing now, I may move there.

Aside from (IMO) the outrageoussness and offensiveness of Choudary's remark about this latest Charlie Hebdo cartoon, there is (IMO) the STUPIDITY AND ILLOGIC of his comment that this cartoon-portrayal of Muhammed is so offensive:

Here's why:

1. WHO EVER SAID -- besides Choudary and his like-minded followers -- that this is a likeness of Muhammed in the first place?

2. And if Muhammed has never been pictured, and, by their "religion's" commands, is never to be pictured, then HOW does Choudary -- or ANYONE -- HAVE ANY IDEA of what Muhammed looked like? That is, unless Choudary HIMSELF has violated the very basics of his own "religion's" commands, by LOOKING UPON, OR PICTURING (which is FORBIDDEN) -- EVEN IN HIS OWN MIND -- a likeness of Muhammed?

3. Also: If Choudary maintains -- as he is doing -- that this Charlie Hebdo cartoon IS a LIKENESS (albeit a cartoonish one) of Muhammed, isn't Choudary HIMSELF HORRIFICALLY OFFENDING MUHAMMED by EQUATING A CARTOON WITH THE ACTUAL (PRESUMED) IMAGE of Muhammed?

4. Furthermore, along those same lines, isn't Choudary HIMSELF FURTHER OFFENDING Muhammed and VIOLATING HIS OWN PROFESSED PRINCIPLES and the REQUIREMENTS OF HIS OWN RELIGION, by MIS-USING AND ABUSING AND, IN EFFECT, LYING ABOUT, HOW THIS CARTOON IS A LIKENESS OF MUHAMMED, when the fact is that this cartoon was NEVER CLAIMED, by those who created it, to be of Muhammed, and that Choudary HIMSELF CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHETHER THIS CARTOON DOES OR DOESN'T IN ANY WAY RESEMBLE MUHAMMED?

Oh, for a Clarence Darrow to use this guy's pathetic blather to the wall, for all the world to see the illogic and self-incrimination in what the guy is actually saying!

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I myself am quite convinced that there is something wrong with Choudary. It is not just that they keep putting the spotlight on him and that they let him say things that would get other people arrested by MI5 or the secret service. The thing that truly convinced me about it is what is shown in this video

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

What are the Islamic extremists going to do about it... Make the west even more steadfast in their actions..!?!

The more they attack, the more we will fight back with things that peeve them.

People in France and other western countries are starting to wear CH T-shirts in public.

The Islamic community has backed it's self into a corner now and can only do a couple of things (one of which will pretty much seal the fate of Islam in the west) and they will only have done it to themselves by not having the ability to control their emotions and reactions.

By publicly displaying CH propaganda on a mass scale, many will say that this is outright provocation and they would be spot on..!! Generally, I think the west has had enough and needs an excuse to act. Baiting a group they know will go totally crazy at a mere insult is a good approach if you want them to start something that will give you the excuse to do a little ethnic cleansing within your own homeland.

originally posted by: everyone
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I myself am quite convinced that there is something wrong with Choudary. It is not just that they keep putting the spotlight on him and that they let him say things that would get other people arrested by MI5 or the secret service. The thing that truly convinced me about it is what is shown in this video

This is a good find. It's very interesting that Anjem Choudary has such an imperfect command of Arabic.

The request to define the word "salah or salat" (both spellings are acceptable) is fairly straightforward.

In this context, it usually means "prayer" or "prayers." But Choudary could not answer the question.

I imagine that Choudary's followers (like the 2 Nigerians who beheaded the British soldier, Lee Rigby, in London) are too ignorant to know that Choudary is not an expert in Arabic.

It explains why the Muslim community would consider Choudary to be a joke.

But it doesn't necessarily mean Choudary is an MI5 asset. He may be simply a con man.

I have to say now that it's been mentioned, it does make sense that this guy is an agency asset. He's arrested for terrorist connections a few months ago, now out on bail, and on every TV screen in the world sowing seeds of war and polarization. He gets an op-ed in USA Today immediately after the murders...maybe even the day of? He is fomenting animosity from the west, and it's working well! If there is war soon, I'd be inclined to believe that this whole thing was a setup given how it unfolded. Although I suppose we already were at 'war', but...now France is sending an aircraft carrier and pledging to fight. Interesting that, if there were no plans to do this before the Hebdo attack, how easily and with no resistance it can be done in a reactionary manner, right after a 'terrorist' attack. Do wars ever not start right after some giant publicized debacle like this? I don't know if it was a false flag or not, but there is certainly a motive for the MIC, governments that need distraction from there own incoherence and corruption, and banks that will fund any military action with interest on the loan. Not sure what to make of it...but rest assured the chaos will not end in my lifetime.

a reply to: humanityrising

Did You know that even bad publicity is publicity. As long as we mention and show of these guys in the media it is helping them. It keeps their name and mission alive. Even With us.

If People cant see that this is being pushed on us from more than one side, they have to be really dumb.