Reza Aslan blames the attack in Paris on french bigotry

As a fellow european, i totally disagree with this douchebag. I've tried to be patient with this idiot, but he is not a scholar. From his statement there aren't any evidence behind them nor are there anything logical behind them. He can go sit in a cornor, because he's a complete douche

so what did cause it?

OP you clearly have no idea who Reza Aslan is lol. He's really smart.

This thread is probably based on a lie anyway, I'm not even going to watch your video since I can't find this on any other news site.

Muslim extremists who think everyone should either think like they do or die.

Like the United States? lol.

I see you have found an alternative to TYT.

He's ignorant, he blames an open society where the borders are open to all of EU which means people from all backgrounds. Bigotry is not the case, he's wrong.

It's not based on a lie, watch the video and stop assuming. The evidence of him is in the video wise ass

Nailed it....

That's like the "She shouldn't have worn that dress" defense.

I agree and disagree with Aslan's approach to this. I disagree that barring someone's religious freedom caused the massacre. But yes, this has come to a head because of cultural differences, obviously. Aslan in the video does not condone violence, and the people narrating are breaking apart a lot of his statements fairly out of context to say "What he means to say is, that it's France's fault they had people murdered!" And he is not saying that at all. Those podcast narrator whatever they are people are saying that, not him.

What I don't understand is how you presume to just shut out the fact that culture clash and other factors may have led to this happening. Obviously radical islam and radical anything is dangerous, and sick people will find these avenues for self destruction. But if you presume to just call people douche's because "How dare anyone not take the most anti-muslim stance on the massacre that they can" then I just don't see why you would open it up to discussion. These people are having a discussion on what they think may have brewed this, and I agree that what Aslan adds to the conversation may have been a factor. Are you saying it isn't? Or are you saying that he should agree that radical islam of a muslim religion (which he follows) is bad and caused the deaths and nothing else did?

Also he is a scholar.. It isn't a state of mind, it's the fact that he has degrees and a job that say he is. I'm not saying Aslan had some points I didn't agree with, he is hardly a shining star of virtue.

I should also add that I watched the video. As well as the interview that wasn't cut apart by these hosts.

Islamic shitforbrains fundamentalist bigotry at it's worse.

@ashbee: he is saying that it's France's bigotry that is the cause, which it isn't. He's saying that is hostile towards foreign cultures, which it isn't

Passive sufi. What did you expect?

Fox..... CNN..... Both get their fair share of guests like him. For some reason though, Fox haters seem to go ballistic more over the smallest things.

Caused the attack?

It was caused by extreme religious beliefs that are fueled by insanity.

Maybe I'm watching a different video than you are, because I don't see him saying that. He is saying that France in particular has a political party that is against muslims. And that with the rise of immigration and different race, religions, and cultures coming together, that European countries are struggling to find an identity and have began a backlash which includes violence against both parties. (Now I don't know how I feel about that point that France needs an identity but whatever.) He does say that France has been more actively against multiculturalism which I would almost agree with, from what I know about France which is very little. A lot of the English I know find the french to be particularly exclusive in their culture/language/etc, but that is neither here nor there. I do know that several other countries limit immigration to keep a relatively homogenous nation. All I'm saying is he has ideas that may have fueled the attack as well as the attacks on innocent muslims in the country.

Now nowhere in there did he say France was openly hostile towards foreign cultures. Unless you mean hostile to be not reciprocating cultural shifts such as building mosques and having sharia law. I consider hostile to be using deadly force in opposition to and I didn't see him saying that France was hostile in that way, much less justifying the attack like this seemed to be heading towards, which would be despicable.

@uninspiredcup: Really, just another US hater.

when did people start holding onto this "extreme religious beliefs that are fuled by insanity"

and what's this belief called

Perhaps its because you do not know a lot about france or europe that you can listen to him and not fall down from the sheer nonsense he spouts. But as with the guy on Fox news just on the opposite side. This is a case of an ultra liberal minded person who thinks that europe should cater to a minority with strong religious beliefs and makes up truths to fit this agenda.

But first, Le Pen is not against immigration or islam or the moderate muslims, meaning the ones that know that by choosing to live in France they cannot expect their religion (Any religion) to play a major role or suddenly demand special treatment because they cannot tolerate freedom. So not sure which english you are talking about finding the french exclusive? we might make jokes about the french being arrogant but there is a reason Paris is a must see and that so many travel to live in france.

Its the same with most other parties and movements around europe. The problem is not that we have immigration but that we have a increasing islamic group that are used to live in countries where religion is their life and religion is allowed to dictate which freedoms you can have and not have. And that is what fueled the attack, its the notion that France needs to change, it needs to suddenly cater to this islamic minority and remove fundamental freedoms because these people used to live in places where their beliefs were held high.

And that is the biggest problem europe is facing. And where it will come to more and more clashes because we in europe will not give into any extreme religious beliefs and certainly not by removing freedoms.

I'm not disagreeing about any of that being a factor, I'm more trying to figure out what Aslan was adding to the discussion. I don't believe he was saying that France's not bowing to religious pressure is what caused the attack, though it may very well have been the case as I understand it. I guess what I'm arguing here is pedantics, not actual causation. I was saying that he adds factors that may have been a cause. Maybe I'm being too understanding of his viewpoints, but when videos are cut this way with a person having no way to respond to what the narrator insinuates just gives me reason to take it with a grain of salt. Especially when they pull apart his words and put them back in his mouth to make it look more damning.

A lot of that is really interesting. Here in the US I'm surprised we don't have this sort of thing going on, but maybe it is because you would have a hell of a time getting special treatment for being a Muslim in this country.

@The_Last_Ride: I just realized our arguments have now spread to more than one thread. Does this mean we were meant to be?

Pretty much this. He has no goddamn clue about anything in europe

perhaps we are soulmates :o

A couple more threads and it will be undeniable.

This essentially why the rest of the world is beginning to despise all you muslims. Even the moderates seek to justify the behavior of the extreme. Just don't cry wolf when everyone here hates Islam. All of you brought this upon yourselves.

Ya, a good idea is not to listen to what the guy talking about the clip says, he is not important the key is to just listen to what Reza Aslan says because this is what is so utter nonsense. Again we in europe are not fighting to figure out we are, neither are we racist scum who just hate immigrants, we like/need immigrants , they bring a lot to europe particular with our native population unable to keep up the birthrate. What we do fight however is the rising extreme islamic groups who wants to turn our countries into the places they ran from because for them there is only Sharia. Which leads them to clash with fundamental freedoms we have in europe.

And yes it is very interesting why you don't seem to have the same problem in US, but it might be a number of factors, very strict and closed immigration policy, a strong political system where nationalism is not a curse word and the last thing that the society have not been close to Nazi-Germany, which still haunts most politicians and lastly is not founded on socialism. So yes i can see if anyone tried to pull the same demands they would be shot down faster than they can say "Allahu Akbar"

It is actually pretty crazy and the prime example of how crazy it is , is live and well in sweden where a political party have been blacklisted across political fronts, since they all refuse to even acknowledge this party and the fact that they have a not insignificant backing among the voters, and this is increasing.

Why didn't you post the full interview then instead of this version? That may have been more helpful.

And haha, yes it is incredibly scary to try hurting Americans. We do have stricter immigration but we also have a lot of different cultures here. Mostly latin americans immigrate here (based on geography) and that mostly just brings more Catholicism and spicier food which nobody really minds culturally. And whatever people may think about firearms, they also can make people think twice about what they are doing. :P

Nationalism is over used here. I like that it isn't a curse word, and I enjoy American stereotypes as well as going all out with national pride. I can be pretty obnoxious about it if the time is right. However, we have a different issue where being "Anti-American" is pretty much a curse word, and causes its own set of problems.

Which country are you from? I see you mentioned Sweden.

"the rest of the world"

which planet are you on?

i don't justify the killing, at the same time there is no need to piss us off for no reason

if you go onto the street and show a black man something racist and he then reacts, who has the initial fault? same way you target a group of people and offend them, you will get a response, i don't need to explain these simple basic life lessons to you as if you are some child from the wild new to civilization, have some common fking sense.

You clearly have misunderstood something here.

Does a black man threaten anyone with violence or kills someone because they perhaps drew a racist picture , of course not most sane people knows that noone is forcing you to watch that or spend time with or near places that might display things that offend. Its like we in the western tolerate muslims in our country handing out fliers with "kill all jews" or hateful derogatory speech about jews or telling everyone at the mosque to kill jews or all infidels. all this goes on without us taking 3 plans and steer them into some buildings or picking up arms and kill 17 innocent people or putting a bomb and going into the london underground. Or constantly painting ourselves as poor victims.

I get you are offended but thats the freaking cost of having a free society and having freedom of expression and press and those are cornerstones in any western free society. We all get offend sometimes but its kinda telling that the only ones picking up guns are religious.

*some religious. Don't stereotype.

wrt islamic laws, is it forbidden to seek out images that may offend? if so, how would so many muslims come to see this offensive material if they're not seeking it out? cartoonists are not breaking into muslims' homes and dropping papers off in their living rooms.

if i know there's shit on the internet that may offend me, so i simply make the point of avoiding it.

LOL! Well...does he?

@comp_atkins: He's the local apologist. You can't reason with him.

The attack was caused by extremist Muslims being unable to accept that people in the West have a right to freedom of speech and expression, and are allowed to, by law, criticize, in whatever way they deem necessary so long as it does not harm or incite harm against those it criticizes, whatever they please.

As for Asslan (cwutididthar?), he clearly thinks Muslims deserve special treatment or rights that allow them to be free from criticism and "offense". It's these kinds of apologetics that give even more power to extremist groups, when they see Westerners defending their position.Religious diversity is a hallmark in the United States? DAFUQ? Yeah, because anyone who isn't a Christian is treated quite poorly in most areas that aren't heavily secularized. That's definitely a "hallmark".

Secularization is positive movement in the West. It heralds a future where people are free to believe what they want, but are not allowed to pass laws or regulations based on their religious beliefs. Muslims either need to accept secularization, or return from whence they came. They should not be allowed to dictate how Western society should "behave" itself.

Piss you off for no reason? No, there is PLENTY of reasons to piss you and all your muslim cultists off. You people do not condemn the extremists and in fact support these fascist governments and terrorist attacks. I am glad we are pissing you off. Such barbaric religion has no place in the 21st century.

Well that's twice today I agreed with. If you cannot assimilate into a new culture then you should stay home.

What's wrong with passing laws based on religious beliefs?

You know sometimes I feel that the reason west promotes secularism so much is because they don't want to accept that it was their own fault, the people's fault that the west had to go through the dark ages. But some people tend to believe that religion opposes progression in general.

Well there's just something slightly wrong with this thinking. And that is that people are starting to believe that if their society is a secular one then they're immune and although it's too soon to say, given the fact that EVERY civilization will eventually fall, it would be interesting to see what the fall of the modern western civilization will be blamed on.

I can tell you one thing though. It won't be blamed on the people like it should.

@alim298:

Most historians do not use the term "dark ages" any more, much progress was made during this period which would eventually lead to the renaissance. And the reason people believe religion opposes progression is because we can see it in action in any country that follows sharia law.

Say that to yourself a few times again and really think about the problem.

Religious belief: "Homosexuals are an abomination".

Law: "Homosexuals cannot be married because religion says they are an abomination".

Do you see the issue? Religious beliefs, within a religion itself, varies from person to person. We cannot base law, something that is designed to govern an entire group of people, based on the beliefs of one or a handful of people within that group. It is objectively unfair and non-inclusive. If law is based on something else, mainly logic and reason, rather than faith and belief, then it becomes objectively fair and inclusive. Everyone is held to the same standard, given the same rights and receive the same punishments for criminal behaviour.

You know sometimes I feel that the reason west promotes secularism so much is because they don't want to accept that it was their own fault, the people's fault that the west had to go through the dark ages. But some people tend to believe that religion opposes progression in general.

Well there's just something slightly wrong with this thinking. And that is that people are starting to believe that if their society is a secular one then they're immune and although it's too soon to say, given the fact that EVERY civilization will eventually fall, it would be interesting to see what the fall of the modern western civilization will be blamed on.

I can tell you one thing though. It won't be blamed on the people like it should.

Religion does oppose progression. As an institution, religion impedes progress by standing fast by rules set in place hundreds or thousands of years ago (depends on the religion). There is no room within a religious institution to adapt to new discoveries or ideas without upsetting a large number of it's followers.

With secularization, religion becomes less of an institution, and more of a personalized "adventure" or "journey" so to speak. There is less politics, less of everything that really gets in the way of people's personal experiences in life that lead them to be better people. When people are allowed to freely, BY LAW, hold whatever beliefs they will, so long as they do not harm others, or incite harm against others, is an infinitely positive thing.

Secularism is the trend that the world is moving towards, and it is a positive thing for humanity. It gives people the means to explore different ideas without the threat of being punished by their government's for even thinking that whatever the government imposes is right (see monarchies of the past, or modern religious government that rule through fear of reprisal). Muslims are a few hundred years behind the West, culturally, in this sense, and are being brought, kicking and screaming into the modern age.

Many are completely fine with it and are adapting swimmingly (I know quite a few Muslims from my life that still hold staunchly Islamic beliefs, but can coexist peacefully with people of other and no religion). Others, whom have naturally violent tendencies, who are products of regimes where violence is the only way in which they can uphold the law, tend to have a problem with secularism and the freedom of thought, belief and expression. They only ever knew suppression of the "different" and are trying to impose that upon the West.

I for one will not have it.

Different religions have different beliefs.

Are you really asking why passing laws on some religious book is bad in a western multicultural setting? But what religion should we make laws on? majority? minority? Islam?

Also i cannot understand how you can not see how bad it is to let a society be dictated by religion is, i would assume that Syria, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and more and more parts of Africa would be proof enough why.

But you are right in one thing, religion isent bad , religion is nothing but a dead thing. Its us humans who just loves to find reasons to kill each other.

Yes but we can cherry pick. Not that it's a good idea or something.

Hmm. Now that I think about it secularism doesn't seem so bad. Further study may make me change my opinion but at this point I have nothing to say against it.

Wait someone actually mentioned turkey as a non-secular country.

Ottomans will be proud:

Do you even know where Turkey is....

No wait don't answer because im pretty sure you still think its what you put on the thanksgiving table.

I've been to turkey. Have you?

No wait don't answer because I'm pretty you think it's some place on mars or something.

Turkey is technically secular country but since so much of it's population is Muslim it obviously effects the government quite a bit. So it's a theocracy in the same sense that the USA is a theocracy only a little more extreme.

He just said he doesn't justify the killings, yet you throw him in (and all of Muslim) with the same extremist groups. Prejudice is fueled by ignorance and anger. Just because you have a right to piss people off doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

Well, since i live in europe i kinda know where a country in euro-asia is.

But Turkey might be claimed to be secular in some circles, but there is a reason why the country is still not a part of EU.

So before you try to be a smart-ass at least know more than just "i visited there once and now think i know it all"

Yes, Turkey is technically a secular run country with a huge non-secular population. But as you have seen here and also heard even from moderate muslims, their religion is key. So the government might seem on a strict paper level secular, but its not.

Turkey is a non-secular country which is also one of the many reasons why its still not a part of the EU.