Slashdot Mirror
Fourth Bangladeshi Blogger Murdered
An anonymous reader writes: In May we discussed news that three bloggers in Bangladesh had been targeted for brutal killings in recent months over what they wrote online. Now, the local branch of Al-Qaeda is claiming responsibility for a new victim, blogger Niloy Chakrabarti. "The journalist had contributed to the humanist blogging platform Mukto-Mona. His posts often were critical of Islam. Mukto-Mona was established by another blogger—Avijit Roy, who was murdered in Bangladesh in February." His murder was as ghastly as the previous three — six men broke into his apartment with machetes. Rights groups are condemning the killings and demanding that the government put a stop to them. "There is little doubt that these especially brutal killings are designed to sow fear and to have a chilling effect on free speech. This is unacceptable."
The Left loves.....blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.
Conservatives love blogging a lot.
Bloviating is a human tradition that knows no political parties (a couple of those blogs look reasonably good, too).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
An interesting choice of word: "islamophobia", i.e. an irrational fear of Islam. Personally that belief leaves me with a mix of disdain and rational fear. Read the qur'an. Read what Islam's prominent and well respected scholars have to say about the right interpretation of its laws. Look at what is going on in every country where Islam is a mainstream religion.
The difference between christianity and islam in this regard is simply one of degree, not nature! The only reason Christianity isn't worse today is because of tireless efforts by those who would free you rather than enslaving you; Christianity was much worse than Islam, but it's lost most of its popularity. For some reason, Islam is still growing. I really don't have a theory as to why.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sorry mods but this is NOT insightful as the poster does not understand how the Koran works.
The Koran is NOT the bible, it does not have any conflicting passages, why? Because Muhammad had the benefit of seeing how the other religions worked and came up with a frankly brilliant little fix for all the conflicts. Its really very simple...if a rule comes later that conflicts with a rule that comes earlier then the latter one supersedes the earlier one which takes care of conflicting passages.
Of course this also blows the whole "religion of peace" BS as the Hadiths that have come for the last 200 years have been "jihad jihad jihad" and since they came later they supersede the earlier peaceful passages and since Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers to help spread the reach of Sharia this works to their advantage, simply quote the old passages and never mention they were replaced centuries ago by the jihad Hadiths.
Have you not wondered why these Islam apology groups can say they "condemn terrorism " or a specific terrorist but never come out and say this terrorism has broken the laws of Islam and should treat those that commit terrorism as not a follower of Islam? Its simple, its because they can lie to unbelievers but NOT about fellow Muslims and since they know the little rule about latter superseding they would be bearing false witness against groups that was in reality doing exactly what the faith tells them to, waging jihad.
I would urge everybody who has any doubts read up a little on Wahhabism, a good place to start would be this this frontline article and then read up about the Sunni and Shia, they all do the same thing and all follow the supersedes rule which means you can really only look at the last 200 years worth of hadiths as everything else is treated as history, and what are all the new hadiths? Jihad jihad jihad.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
There is also the big contrast in the way the founders of most religions lived and what they taught - whether it was Abraham, Moses, Christ, Zarathustra, Buddha, Confucious et al - vs Mohammed. All of the first group were essentially philosophers/preachers who came up w/ a set of rules reining in their followers. Mohammed, by contrast, was the most extreme of everyone. He had several critics of himself murdered, including a 90+ year old man and a pregnant woman, forced his son to divorce his wife so that he could have her for himself, married a 6 year old and thighed her at 9, broke agreements after 10 years...
All this might be merely history, except that Mohammed is held high in Islam as 'al Insan al Kamil' - the perfect man, or 'uswa hasana' - a model of conduct FOR ALL TIME, not just the 7th century AD. In fact, even what ISIS does today is less deranged than what he used to do. That's why the attempts of everybody - Democrat OR Republican - to insulate any opposition to Jihad from the charges of opposing Islam itself - is not only doomed to failure, but counter productive.
TFA, these bloggers who get murdered are idiots for doing their work in Bangladesh itself, when that country is a major hub of Jihadists. Avijit Roy, for instance, was an Australian resident who visited Dacca and got murdered there. I don't think those idiots are much different from the journalists who went to Syria or Iraq to cover the civil wars there, and got beheaded by ISIS.