That isn't even close to accurate. That sounds like something from FOX News.
I've studied the Bible pretty extensively. The constraints Christians operate under (aka the New Testament) make it pretty clear killing people is not kosher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."
"If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.
If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge—whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults—take them to the place the Lord your God will choose. Go to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the Lord will choose. Be careful to do everything they instruct you to do. Act according to whatever they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your God is to be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel. All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not be contemptuous again."
"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.""
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"
These texts are all written by people who had a desire to control other people - large groups of poorly educated people millennia ago that they couldn't control by force, which is testament to the power that writing and ideas have over weapons. Lots of people have been killed as a result because words are open to interpretation.
Fortunately modern Christians are able to ignore more violent parts of the texts by excusing them as being limited to a particular time period because things like stoning are archaic forms of punishment. In Eastern countries, stoning is still used so there is not a more passive culture to balance with the texts. For Muslims that have integrated into Western society there is but there are still holdovers like honor killings and violent attacks for infidelity or disagreeable relationships.
Having a tolerant/liberal attitude towards others is what makes the problems go away. No one was ever killed because someone tolerated their ideas too much. It's intolerance/conservatism and rigidly following an unchanging ideology that causes the problems. It's the unwillingness to accept differences. That doesn't mean being tolerant of intolerant ideologies. It means promoting the idea of tolerance to people who are intolerant by nature.
On the topic of free speech, many people have come out promoting this but we don't really have free speech i.e speech without consequences including suppression. Someone can be sued or arrested for messages they send on twitter. A newspaper most likely wouldn't be allowed to print headlines like 'the country is full of n*rs, jews and gypsy immigrants, they should f* off back to where they came from' or 'kill all the gays'. That sort of thing would fall under hate speech and something would be done about it.
"The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey. The Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence."
"In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both."
"France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private communication which is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, for example, the Holocaust."
As with religious texts, laws are similarly written to control large groups of people (with varying degrees of education) without the use of physical force. They act as pre-emptive conditioning. Children are taught the same way - they are conditioned to behave a certain way with words before they can do harm to themselves or others e.g don't go near the fire.
We can't have completely free speech because it allows people to use hateful speech, one example in the wikipedia article was the cross-burning on the lawn of a black family. It would also allow Muslim clerics to stand in the streets and proclaim death to all non-believers of Islam. It does allows Christians to picket funerals protesting homosexuality.
Killing should never be the result of hate speech but then amputation shouldn't be the result of theft either. The culture that fundamentalists come from promotes the notion of harsh punishment for minor crimes.
Western societies draw lines at content that we are prepared to tolerate. Those lines are too liberal for some Eastern cultures and with 1.6 billion followers of Islam (1 in 5 people on Earth), they're going to try to change that and a small portion with violence. That can't be allowed to happen.
Stephen Fry among others called to republish the cartoons, the magazine has ramped up publication for the next edition:
That thought had crossed my mind but the goal is to encourage peace and not war. Do we expect Muslims to be more tolerant towards more liberal Western society by doing this? They need more reasons to be tolerant, not fewer. This doesn't apply much to the murderers, they've made their life choice already and violated their own ideology by murdering a Muslim police officer. They shouldn't be allowed to act as representatives for 1.6b people nor should those billions of people be given reasons to passively support them.
People like to compete and when a member of a competing ideology makes an offensive move you retaliate (support, defense, offense), ignore (walk away) or accept defeat. Hebdo made multiple offensive moves, Muslim extremists retaliated by offense. 'Je suis charlie' is a form of support and defense of what the publisher did, republishing is further offense, defeat (accepting the killings as justified) is not an option. Walking away would probably be accepting that the cartoon material causes offense and not continuing to do it. That means making new judgements over what kind of speech is hateful and what isn't and what exemptions exist for a satirical context.
We know the goal, that's the easy part and that is to have an outcome that pleases everyone - promoting the feeling of freedom of expression while at the same time promoting the suppression of hate. Reaching that balance is not easy but as I say, the best way forward is to promote the benefits of tolerance rather than give people reason to justify their intolerance.
"Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them"
There are messages of peace in the religious texts but they are mixed in with messages of oppression, sometimes in the same block of text. The parts (and religions) that people selectively adhere to are chosen because of a moral code that exists outside of the religion. No deity is responsible for these choices. Society has to define that moral code for the benefit of everyone in it. This involves diminishing the importance of religion or in general the idea that any information is unquestionable and promoting rational processing of information and access to it.
Blah blah. Last I saw, the New Testament had Christ's mortal ministry. Taking Deuteronomy out of context doesn't work.
It would make the job of stopping terrorism a lot easier if we did less stuff to help create new radicals.
I disagree. It is a good strategy to create more extremists, because that brings certain ones out of the closet. The more extremists, the better, because that only validates what certain people have been saying all along.
I've studied the Bible pretty extensively. The constraints Christians operate under (aka the New Testament) make it pretty clear killing people is not kosher.
So I'm erroneously attributing the Old Testament as part of the Christian religion, or are you choosing to ignore the negative parts while still adhering to other parts?
Taking Deuteronomy out of context doesn't work.
I, for one, cannot wait for you to put those excerpts into the proper context.
What I am most irreversibly offended by is the fact that the vast majority of Muslim religious leaders don't have the courage to issue a fatwa against the people of their own faith who are dragging their revered religion -- and their Prophet -- through the mud in the most grotesque way. Think murdered schoolchildren, abducted young girls, car bombs by the dozen, suicide bombings, public beheadings on social media.... I could go on and on with an utterly depraved and depressing list.
Charlie Hebdo is but the latest example of this depravity.
For example, can anyone name even one Muslim religious leader who issued a fatwa against, say, Osama Bin Laden? The leaders of Boko Haram? The leaders of ISIL? If not, why not?
What I am most irreversibly offended by is the fact that the vast majority of Muslim religious leaders don't have the courage to issue a fatwa against the people of their own faith who are dragging their revered religion -- and their Prophet -- through the mud in the most grotesque way. Think murdered schoolchildren, abducted young girls, car bombs by the dozen, suicide bombings, public beheadings on social media.... I could go on and on with an utterly depraved and depressing list.
Charlie Hebdo is but the latest example of this depravity.
For example, can anyone name even one Muslim religious leader who issued a fatwa against, say, Osama Bin Laden? The lears of Boko Haram? The leaders of ISIL? If not, why not?
What I am most irreversibly offended by is the fact that the vast majority of Muslim religious leaders don't have the courage to issue a fatwa against the people of their own faith who are dragging their revered religion -- and their Prophet -- through the mud in the most grotesque way. Think murdered schoolchildren, abducted young girls, car bombs by the dozen, suicide bombings, public beheadings on social media.... I could go on and on with an utterly depraved and depressing list.
Charlie Hebdo is but the latest example of this depravity.
For example, can anyone name even one Muslim religious leader who issued a fatwa against, say, Osama Bin Laden? The leaders of Boko Haram? The leaders of ISIL? If not, why not?
You lost me. My understanding of Islam is rudimentary, at best, but I thought fatwa is a legal ruling for the followers of Islam? Doesn't that, by definition, mean it's for the people of their own faith?
What I am most irreversibly offended by is the fact that the vast majority of Muslim religious leaders don't have the courage to issue a fatwa against the people of their own faith who are dragging their revered religion -- and their Prophet -- through the mud in the most grotesque way. Think murdered schoolchildren, abducted young girls, car bombs by the dozen, suicide bombings, public beheadings on social media.... I could go on and on with an utterly depraved and depressing list.
Charlie Hebdo is but the latest example of this depravity.
For example, can anyone name even one Muslim religious leader who issued a fatwa against, say, Osama Bin Laden? The lears of Boko Haram? The leaders of ISIL? If not, why not?
You lost me. My understanding of Islam is rudimentary, at best, but I thought fatwa is a legal ruling for the followers of Islam? Doesn't that, by definition, mean it's for the people of their own faith?
And you lost me. What do you think I was referring to if not a ruling -- I am not sure about the legality -- for the (true) followers of Islam?
I disagree. It is a good strategy to create more extremists, because that brings certain ones out of the closet.
There will always be some percentage of crazy sociopathic people in society hiding their proclivities, but it seems like a bad idea to create armies of angry desperate people for them to lead. Isn't that how we got WWII?
It also seems like a bad strategy to deliberately create extremists in a world with loose nukes and the increasing ease of genetically engineering a disease that could kill everyone. The more radicals there are, the harder it is to keep track of them.
Even though I think that Bill Maher is a weasly, little liberal and I refuse to watch his show, even though I have HBO, he is correct in this statement:
Bill Maher didn’t hold back Wednesday night, blasting “hundreds of millions” of the world’s Muslims for allegedly supporting the Islamic terrorist massacre of cartoonists, writers, and editors at a Parisian satirical magazine that has mocked the Prophet Muhammad.
If you make enough radicals, you'll eventually have some who are smart enough and competent enough to do something really big and horrific.
They are already working on that. This is a full out war that is being waged against all Western, civilized countries, and the sooner that these countries realize that, then the sooner that they will be able to deal with the real problem, and treat it as a war.
Let's just get this terminology out of the way. A "Fatwa" isn't a call for death or a call for war. It's a legal ruling in Islam so calling for a fatwa would be inappropriate in this case as near as I understand it.
I fear it's only a matter of time before this kind of thing (group of Islamic extremists with military-grade weapons doing rampant shooting on street) happens in other European cities, or even the US.
IS must be rubbing their hands with joy when they saw what a few could do to the metropolitan city protected by polices with only handguns. It's way easier than taking Kobani for sure. And anyone did it will be way more famous.
Comments
That isn't even close to accurate. That sounds like something from FOX News.
I've studied the Bible pretty extensively. The constraints Christians operate under (aka the New Testament) make it pretty clear killing people is not kosher.
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+13
"If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.
If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge—whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults—take them to the place the Lord your God will choose. Go to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the Lord will choose. Be careful to do everything they instruct you to do. Act according to whatever they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your God is to be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel. All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not be contemptuous again."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.""
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/008-qmt.php#008.012
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/005-qmt.php#005.033
These texts are all written by people who had a desire to control other people - large groups of poorly educated people millennia ago that they couldn't control by force, which is testament to the power that writing and ideas have over weapons. Lots of people have been killed as a result because words are open to interpretation.
Fortunately modern Christians are able to ignore more violent parts of the texts by excusing them as being limited to a particular time period because things like stoning are archaic forms of punishment. In Eastern countries, stoning is still used so there is not a more passive culture to balance with the texts. For Muslims that have integrated into Western society there is but there are still holdovers like honor killings and violent attacks for infidelity or disagreeable relationships.
Having a tolerant/liberal attitude towards others is what makes the problems go away. No one was ever killed because someone tolerated their ideas too much. It's intolerance/conservatism and rigidly following an unchanging ideology that causes the problems. It's the unwillingness to accept differences. That doesn't mean being tolerant of intolerant ideologies. It means promoting the idea of tolerance to people who are intolerant by nature.
On the topic of free speech, many people have come out promoting this but we don't really have free speech i.e speech without consequences including suppression. Someone can be sued or arrested for messages they send on twitter. A newspaper most likely wouldn't be allowed to print headlines like 'the country is full of n*rs, jews and gypsy immigrants, they should f* off back to where they came from' or 'kill all the gays'. That sort of thing would fall under hate speech and something would be done about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
"The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey. The Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence."
"In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both."
"France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private communication which is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, for example, the Holocaust."
As with religious texts, laws are similarly written to control large groups of people (with varying degrees of education) without the use of physical force. They act as pre-emptive conditioning. Children are taught the same way - they are conditioned to behave a certain way with words before they can do harm to themselves or others e.g don't go near the fire.
We can't have completely free speech because it allows people to use hateful speech, one example in the wikipedia article was the cross-burning on the lawn of a black family. It would also allow Muslim clerics to stand in the streets and proclaim death to all non-believers of Islam. It does allows Christians to picket funerals protesting homosexuality.
Killing should never be the result of hate speech but then amputation shouldn't be the result of theft either. The culture that fundamentalists come from promotes the notion of harsh punishment for minor crimes.
Western societies draw lines at content that we are prepared to tolerate. Those lines are too liberal for some Eastern cultures and with 1.6 billion followers of Islam (1 in 5 people on Earth), they're going to try to change that and a small portion with violence. That can't be allowed to happen.
Stephen Fry among others called to republish the cartoons, the magazine has ramped up publication for the next edition:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/stephen-fry-calls-on-the-worlds-media-to-publish-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-9965449.html
That thought had crossed my mind but the goal is to encourage peace and not war. Do we expect Muslims to be more tolerant towards more liberal Western society by doing this? They need more reasons to be tolerant, not fewer. This doesn't apply much to the murderers, they've made their life choice already and violated their own ideology by murdering a Muslim police officer. They shouldn't be allowed to act as representatives for 1.6b people nor should those billions of people be given reasons to passively support them.
People like to compete and when a member of a competing ideology makes an offensive move you retaliate (support, defense, offense), ignore (walk away) or accept defeat. Hebdo made multiple offensive moves, Muslim extremists retaliated by offense. 'Je suis charlie' is a form of support and defense of what the publisher did, republishing is further offense, defeat (accepting the killings as justified) is not an option. Walking away would probably be accepting that the cartoon material causes offense and not continuing to do it. That means making new judgements over what kind of speech is hateful and what isn't and what exemptions exist for a satirical context.
http://gawker.com/5524983/cartoons-banned-by-apple-a-gallery/
We know the goal, that's the easy part and that is to have an outcome that pleases everyone - promoting the feeling of freedom of expression while at the same time promoting the suppression of hate. Reaching that balance is not easy but as I say, the best way forward is to promote the benefits of tolerance rather than give people reason to justify their intolerance.
"Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV
There are messages of peace in the religious texts but they are mixed in with messages of oppression, sometimes in the same block of text. The parts (and religions) that people selectively adhere to are chosen because of a moral code that exists outside of the religion. No deity is responsible for these choices. Society has to define that moral code for the benefit of everyone in it. This involves diminishing the importance of religion or in general the idea that any information is unquestionable and promoting rational processing of information and access to it.
Blah blah. Last I saw, the New Testament had Christ's mortal ministry. Taking Deuteronomy out of context doesn't work.
It would make the job of stopping terrorism a lot easier if we did less stuff to help create new radicals.
I disagree. It is a good strategy to create more extremists, because that brings certain ones out of the closet. The more extremists, the better, because that only validates what certain people have been saying all along.
So I'm erroneously attributing the Old Testament as part of the Christian religion, or are you choosing to ignore the negative parts while still adhering to other parts?
I, for one, cannot wait for you to put those excerpts into the proper context.
Charlie Hebdo is but the latest example of this depravity.
For example, can anyone name even one Muslim religious leader who issued a fatwa against, say, Osama Bin Laden? The leaders of Boko Haram? The leaders of ISIL? If not, why not?
What I am most irreversibly offended by is the fact that the vast majority of Muslim religious leaders don't have the courage to issue a fatwa against the people of their own faith who are dragging their revered religion -- and their Prophet -- through the mud in the most grotesque way. Think murdered schoolchildren, abducted young girls, car bombs by the dozen, suicide bombings, public beheadings on social media.... I could go on and on with an utterly depraved and depressing list.
Charlie Hebdo is but the latest example of this depravity.
For example, can anyone name even one Muslim religious leader who issued a fatwa against, say, Osama Bin Laden? The lears of Boko Haram? The leaders of ISIL? If not, why not?
Here's a few:
http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/
You lost me. My understanding of Islam is rudimentary, at best, but I thought fatwa is a legal ruling for the followers of Islam? Doesn't that, by definition, mean it's for the people of their own faith?
What I am most irreversibly offended by is the fact that the vast majority of Muslim religious leaders don't have the courage to issue a fatwa against the people of their own faith who are dragging their revered religion -- and their Prophet -- through the mud in the most grotesque way. Think murdered schoolchildren, abducted young girls, car bombs by the dozen, suicide bombings, public beheadings on social media.... I could go on and on with an utterly depraved and depressing list.
Charlie Hebdo is but the latest example of this depravity.
For example, can anyone name even one Muslim religious leader who issued a fatwa against, say, Osama Bin Laden? The lears of Boko Haram? The leaders of ISIL? If not, why not?
Here's a few:
http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/
You appear to have missed a key word in my post: fatwa. (Also, see below, in case you did not understand that word).
You lost me. My understanding of Islam is rudimentary, at best, but I thought fatwa is a legal ruling for the followers of Islam? Doesn't that, by definition, mean it's for the people of their own faith?
And you lost me. What do you think I was referring to if not a ruling -- I am not sure about the legality -- for the (true) followers of Islam?
I thought the notion of a 'fatwa' in the context of my post was obvious and implied (as for example, the fatwa against Rushdie). But in case you did not understand, here's a very good guide, from a very good source: http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/44-what-is-a-fatwa.html
While you're at it, can you explain what your understanding of Islam is?
You appear to have missed a key word in my post: fatwa. (Also, see below, in case you did not understand that word).
A fatwa ruling, no but as is said in the link there are plenty of those of the Islamic faith that condemn such heinous acts of terrorism
I would guess that because doing so would go against the Quran, as said people were acting in accordance with it.
A fatwa ruling, no but as is said in the link there are plenty of those of the Islamic faith that condemn such heinous acts of terrorism
Who cares. That was irrelevant to my point.
I disagree. It is a good strategy to create more extremists, because that brings certain ones out of the closet.
There will always be some percentage of crazy sociopathic people in society hiding their proclivities, but it seems like a bad idea to create armies of angry desperate people for them to lead. Isn't that how we got WWII?
It also seems like a bad strategy to deliberately create extremists in a world with loose nukes and the increasing ease of genetically engineering a disease that could kill everyone. The more radicals there are, the harder it is to keep track of them.
Even though I think that Bill Maher is a weasly, little liberal and I refuse to watch his show, even though I have HBO, he is correct in this statement:
Bill Maher didn’t hold back Wednesday night, blasting “hundreds of millions” of the world’s Muslims for allegedly supporting the Islamic terrorist massacre of cartoonists, writers, and editors at a Parisian satirical magazine that has mocked the Prophet Muhammad.
That's right, hundreds of millions.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/bill-maher-hundreds-of-millions-of-muslims-support-attack-on-charlie-hebdo.html
If you make enough radicals, you'll eventually have some who are smart enough and competent enough to do something really big and horrific.
They are already working on that. This is a full out war that is being waged against all Western, civilized countries, and the sooner that these countries realize that, then the sooner that they will be able to deal with the real problem, and treat it as a war.
Your definition seems to imply that fatwa is a death threat.
Who cares. That was irrelevant to my point.
Let's just get this terminology out of the way. A "Fatwa" isn't a call for death or a call for war. It's a legal ruling in Islam so calling for a fatwa would be inappropriate in this case as near as I understand it.
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/44-what-is-a-fatwa.html
A condemnation would be the more relevant choice of action of which there have been many by those practicing Islam.
I fear it's only a matter of time before this kind of thing (group of Islamic extremists with military-grade weapons doing rampant shooting on street) happens in other European cities, or even the US.
IS must be rubbing their hands with joy when they saw what a few could do to the metropolitan city protected by polices with only handguns. It's way easier than taking Kobani for sure. And anyone did it will be way more famous.