Maryam Violet, an Iranian journalist visiting Nice on holiday, told the Guardian that she saw the lorry running over people as they walked in the pedestrian area after the fireworks had finished.
“There were so many Muslim people who were victims because I could see they had scarves over their head and some were speaking Arabic. One family lost a mother and in Arabic they were saying she’s a martyr,” she said.
Blogging Theology 
Classic. Untold numbers of children have been murdered and muslims are using the incident to push the narrative of the muslim victimology.
LikeLike
D, Daesh targets Muslims who don’t share their vision of what Islam is. This happens frequently in the Middle East. Daesh is much their enemy as it is ours.
LikeLike
Seems the attacker had a long history of petty crimes. Hardly a pious Muslim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is true.
And the sad fact is, that many muslim sects target muslims who don’t share their vision of what islam is. So what ISIS is doing in that respect isn’t diffferent from Saudi Arabia targeting shias, turkey discriminating against alevis, Iran targeting sunnis, and shia and sunnis at each other’s throats in iraq and syria.
This targeting of muslims by other muslims because they don’t share the same vision of islam is not an ISIS aberration, it seems to be characteristic of how various sects and schools of thought interact in the muslim world. Even different jihadi groups within the same sect are targeting each other.
Often these attacks on other muslims are justified by claiming that victims have apostatized, or in some other way transgressed islamic jurisprudence. That is a problem intrinsic to the faith.
LikeLike
No the problem is not intrinsic to Islam. It is found on a much bigger scale in Christianity with millions of believers killing each other in Europe and elsewhere. But you conveniently ignore that.
LikeLike
PAul
Well, again, tu quoque doesn’t help solve the problem.
LikeLike
The problem is you dude. Go and learn the meaning of the word ‘hypocrisy’
LikeLiked by 1 person
@D, you are an evil disgusting person. It is true that IS kills those Muslims who are considered apostates (with right and sometimes falsely) but this was an indiscriminate targeting of people. The guy could have also caught some random IS supporter who went there along.
We as Muslims do not have a problem to persecute Islamic sects that have fallen into heresy like Shiites, Qadianis, Alawites, Shukurovis etc.. But this has nothing to do with this attack.
LikeLike
Nadir
I consider myself schooled.
LikeLiked by 1 person
D: Often these attacks on other muslims are justified by claiming that victims have apostatized, or in some other way transgressed islamic jurisprudence. That is a problem intrinsic to the faith.
Yeah, and the European wars of religion had nothing to do with Christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know if it can be said that the problem of Christians killing Christians is on a much larger scale than Muslims killing Muslims (I would like a source for that statement), but Paul is right in that internalised sectarian violence is not unique to Islam. It is found in a number of religions, all over the world. It is therefore unreasonable to focus specifically on Islam.
LikeLike
Many Muslims WERE the victims.
My intent in highlighting this is to counteract the inevitable media narrative of ISIS verses Westerners. In truth most victims of ISIS are Muslims globally.
No need to make a bigoted rant out of this. Perhaps you cant help it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paul
Do you think that this guy’s targets were the muslims? If s, why go to france to carry out the attack? Why not go to the places where it can be guaranteed that the vast majority of the victims will be muslims?
I understand that there are muslim victims, but this constant refocusing away from the fact that these ISIS religious brethren of yours are attacking non-islamic values only strengthens them.
LikeLike
I suspect it was a revenge attack for the West bombing ISIS territory and killing their people.
LikeLike
Odd for people to talk as if jihadists are targeting westerners specifically. It’s barely been a week since they killed 300 in Baghdad
LikeLike
D, must you be an asshole all the time?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kmak
Must you be an asshole all the time?
LikeLike
My opinion about this is as always that Islam formally does not allow indiscriminate attacks on civilians. But from a revolutionary point of view I have to ask what methods of resistance are left for Muslims? Islam is in clear opposition to secularism but has no capabilities for conventional warfare. Muslims are being oppressed in most European countries and there are political movements whose only topic is Islamophobia. Only the US gives total religious freedom to Muslims but this could change next year too.
So I really don’t see any alternatives to this.
LikeLike
But of course these acts are bad. Killing civilians should not be an alternative. It is very sad that people have to take such actions.
LikeLike
Have too!?????!
LikeLike
An alternative would be to consult a psychiatrist of your choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nadir, you do realize that classical Sunni scholarship abhors rebellion even if the ruler is unjust? Are you aware that Muslims who live in Western countries in exchange for a promise of nonviolence, and allowed to practice their faith are contractually obligated not to harm the country?
LikeLiked by 1 person
1) This is valid for Muslim rulers. I know where you got this from. Bashar Assad is not a Muslim ruler btw.
2) Muslims are obliged to Islamic laws and to those contracts they agree to. If there is a contract between an individual Muslim and non-Muslim states it will have to be satisfied. If there is no clear contract that is valid under Islamic law there is nothing that obligates Muslims to anything except general Islamic rules. Please note that citizenship in non-Muslim countries is not a valid contract in Islam.
Asylum would be a valid contract and Muslim refugees would have to observe the laws of the country. There I agree with you.
LikeLike
Nadir: This is valid for Muslim rulers. I know where you got this from. Bashar Assad is not a Muslim ruler btw.
The scholars say that rebellion is permissible if the ruler commands you to go against the Shariah. Even then, if the costs of rebellion in terms of chaos and bloodshed outweigh the benefits, then it is better to migrate. Muslim minorities in Western countries risk nothing but bloodshed if they attempt to revolt. You are an idiot.
Nadir: Please note that citizenship in non-Muslim countries is not a valid contract in Islam.
The same logic applies. So long as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, they have no basis for resistance or rebelling especially since the costs of rebellion are too high for Muslim minorities. You are an idiot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I could agree with you when it comes to individual Muslims or Muslim communities. But the Islamic state (IS) makes decisions based on other considerations. I see both your and IS’ opinion as valid.
LikeLike
Nadir: But from a revolutionary point of view I have to ask what methods of resistance are left for Muslims? Islam is in clear opposition to secularism but has no capabilities for conventional warfare.
What should Muslims resist? None of the wars that are taking place in Muslim lands are religious wars or aimed at ethnic cleansing. The people who have made this into a religious war are extremists who think non-Muslim aggression is a repeat of the Crusades.
Nadir: Muslims are being oppressed in most European countries and there are political movements whose only topic is Islamophobia
Muslims are far better off in Europe than Yazdis, Shiites and Christians are under ISIS. No matter how bad oppression gets, Muslim minorities are contractually obligated not to engage in violence. Migrate otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Migrating would be a lot better than taking the Law in the hands and hurting innocent civilians, if you don’t think you cannot practice Islam in the West, they you should migrate, totally agree!
LikeLiked by 1 person
1) The wars going on may have different more specific motivations like simply power. But the general conflict between Islam and secularism is real. It is not Christians against Muslims like during the Crusades, it is worse. It is the whole world united under secularism while back then it was simply Muslims vs. Christians. Today it is Muslim vs. the world.
2) Our major principle is “religion matters”. Religion is unlike race or nation chosen by every individual. So those people who are “Yazdis, Shiites and Christians” have chosen to be so by their free will. They are therefore not innocent.
Islam can give them rights but they commit an offence by their disbelief. They are not innocent, religion matters!
Muslims in the West are attacked for not being secular and liberal enough. In Europe Muslims are attacked officially by the authorities. In the US the attacks come from society and not authorities because of the 1st amendment.
I agree that Muslims should not really revolt against non-Muslim states but migrate. However I do understand that some Muslims do this.
LikeLike
Nadir: But the general conflict between Islam and secularism is real…Today it is Muslim vs. the world.
No, it is not Muslims against the world. In fact, Muslims make up a quarter of the world. The world is not beheading Muslims, taking our women folk as sex slaves or putting a tax on us simply for our faith.
Nadir: Our major principle is “religion matters”. Religion is unlike race or nation chosen by every individual. So those people who are “Yazdis, Shiites and Christians” have chosen to be so by their free will. They are therefore not innocent.
Islam can give them rights but they commit an offence by their disbelief. They are not innocent, religion matters!
Humanity matters more than religion. Yazidis, Shiites and Christians were living peacefully alongside their Sunni neighbors for centuries. The US invasion created a rift between Sunnis and Shiites but ISIS took it up to a higher level. This has not made the Ummah better off in the least.
Nadir: Muslims in the West are attacked for not being secular and liberal enough. In Europe Muslims are attacked officially by the authorities. In the US the attacks come from society and not authorities because of the 1st amendment.
Still a lot better than getting beheaded or having our womenfolk sold into sex slavery.
Nadir: I agree that Muslims should not really revolt against non-Muslim states but migrate. However I do understand that some Muslims do this.
Of course you’d understand. You are a troll.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What you call for is secular humanism. The obligation of non-Muslims to be under Islamic rule and paying the tax is in the Qur’an.
LikeLike
Nadir, are you aware of the Marrakesh declaration?
LikeLike
The Marrakesh declaration is not valid. This is not a matter of different opinions. It is based on the Qur’an.
But I do understand that not accepting international laws and Islamic supremacy bring problems to Muslims. So it’s clear that these scholars have to say this. I wished it was “Taqiyya” like the islamophobes claim but it is not. These scholars are honest and serious. I don’t really blame them. They are misled by the secular conspiracy.
In general, I really wished the reality of Muslims was like islamophobes present it. But unfortunately it is only a product of their hate and wishful thinking.
LikeLike
Nadir: The Marrakesh declaration is not valid.
Says who?
LikeLike
These rules are clearly ordered in the Qur’an. They cannot be abolished in modern times.
LikeLike
Abolished? You clearly don’t know what the Marrakesh declaration says. Troll.
LikeLike
the sad reality is that we are all victims of terrorist in the name of Islam. the even sadder part is that the majority of their victims are their own brethren.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We as Muslims do not have a problem to persecute Islamic sects that have fallen into heresy like Shiites, Qadianis, Alawites, Shukurovis etc.”
Persecute?
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, DUDE!!
LikeLike
“Different streams of religious thought are natural and should not prevent unity between Muslims, said the Grand Imam of Al Azhar University in Cairo”.
Dr El Tayyeb said “the one and only solution” was for all Islamic groups to unite and the “reconciliation of scholars”.
…
“We should accept that differences never disappeared and never will,” the Grand Imam said. “If the handprints of people are never the same, how do they expect the mindprint to be?”
Src: http://www.thenational.com/uae/heritage/grand-imam-urges-sunni-shiite-unity
Don’t be, our mouthpiece like I said speak for yourself!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe Dr El Tayyeb should speak for himself, boy?
But seriously, there are disagreements among Muslims that cannot be tolerated. There are disagreements that can be. There are certain Shiites that can be accepted but they are a marginal minority. All other mentioned sects have absolutely no connection to Islam and there is no compromising.
What we can tolerate are honest lay people from these sects.
LikeLike
Exactly, we don’t need a lay man’s opinion like yourself or myself, Dr Tayyeb is an authority so are the other scholars who voiced their opinion on that article and also Muslim intellectual Muhammad Salim Al-away, secretary-general of the International Union for Muslim Scholars call for unity too.
LikeLike