Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Declares War Over Charlie Hebdo Attack
mpicpp writes with news that hackers claiming to represent Anonymous have declared war on terrorists. They pledged to take down websites and social media accounts being used by jihadists as retaliation for the Charlie Hebdo attack. They said,
"It is clear that some people do not want, in a free world, this inviolable and sacred right to express in any way one's opinions. Anonymous will never leave this right violated by obscurantism and mysticism. We will fight always and everywhere the enemies of freedom of speech. ... Freedom of speech and opinion is a non-negotiable thing, to tackle it is to attack democracy. Expect a massive frontal reaction from us because the struggle for the defense of those freedoms is the foundation of our movement.
Well... No.
There was about 1000 years of peace before that happened.
They then suffered a series of lost battles with the Christians and their empires pretty much collapsed. And that got blamed on not being sufficiently "pure" in the faith.
Of course that didn't stop the collapse either.
They were threatened and they stopped, out of fear: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/nov/02/anonymous-zetas-hacking-climbdown
Note that it requires a special FFL to own a grenade launcher, and that it's unlikely that Obama's Justice Department will issue you one, but they're otherwise legal in the USA.
Shooting them at people, not so much....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Uh, no! The death of Abu Baqr was immediately followed by Muslim invasions of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Persia and then rest of the region - from Spain to India. In all these places, locals were persecuted and subjugated under dhimmi status, until they embraced Islam. As a result, most people converted to Islam, while the people who resisted - primarily those in India - were subjected to a holocaust that would make Adolf Eichmann blush. Somewhere between 100-200M Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs were slaughtered in India by various Muslim rulers over the last 1000 years.
The fact that Muslims - Sunni Muslims - are slaughtered in great numbers by the jihadis shows it's about something other than defending Islam or Muslims.
That's neither here nor there. Islam - as in Qur'an/Sunnah/Tafseers - does allow the killing of Muslims who don't support the Jihad. As a famous Islamic saying states: "Disbelief (in Islam) is worse than slaughter"
Besides, one thing one needs to know about Muslims killing Muslims: that's actually a doctrine called Taqfeer. It's the declaration of one group of Muslims as apostates by another, and justifies any punishment for the latter. This, combined with the sectarianism within Islam, allows for what you describe.
In any Muslim land, 'Islam' is defined by whatever sect the majority of that place is. In other words, in Saudi Arabia, it's the Wahabis - the followers of the Hanbali school of Islamic Jurisprudence, and out there, what the Shiites or Sufis or others do is strictly considered unIslamic. Whereas in Iran, since the Shiites are the majority there, Sunnis are the ones considered unIslamic. This also explains why in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, despite being a devout Muslim himself (getting the Qur'an written in his blood, putting 'Allahu Akbar' on the Iraqi flag), Iraq wasn't declared an Islamic republic. Had it been, Shiite Islam would have been the majority, and Sunnis would have been effectively declared Murtads (apostates).
This persecution is not limited to just followers of rival sects, but is extended to sympathizers of those sects, even among followers of the loyal sect. In other words, Sunni Muslims who oppose ISIS/al Qaeda/Hamas/Sipah e Shehaba et al, are roadblocks in the advancement of Islam, and are thereby legitimate targets, as per the Sunnah. Same would work for Shiites who oppose the Iranian regime or Hizbullah. And so on.
So the fact that Muslims too are killed by Jihadi groups does not contradict their stated goals about establishing Islamic states. Sometimes, Muslims who may simply oppose Jihad group A and support Jihad group B may be slaughtered by militias of A, but that doesn't mean that A is not out to establish Islam, or Shariah, even if it be their version. (And versions are usually Sunnite/Shiite or divisions within it, like Hanafi/Hanbali/Shafii/Maliki for Sunnis, or Jaafari/Khomenii for Shiites and so on).