world

Latest Charlie Hebdo cover continues to upset Muslim world

125 Comments
By ASHRAF KHALIL

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

125 Comments
Login to comment

The magazines are hate speech.

Here is the definition of hate speech for those who don't know;

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

-24 ( +6 / -31 )

Burning Bush, not according to the laws of France. I'm not sure you understand what satire means, though...

15 ( +19 / -4 )

@burning bush offends? Well then, I'm offended the definition based on other traits.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

I'm not sure you understand what satire means, though...

I didn't divulge my personal views on the matter, I merely noted that the magazine would easily be classified as Hate Speech in countries that have Hate Speech laws.

Here is the definition of Hate Speech:

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.

Note the words "insulting" and "religion".

Again, I'm not divulging my personal stance on the issue, I'm merely pointing out that the magazine would be defined as Hate Speech in most countries.

-14 ( +6 / -20 )

As always, the devil is in the detail of legislation, in this case, la loi du 29 juillet 1881 (France's Law on the Freedom of the Press):

Articles 32 and 33 prohibit anyone from publicly defaming or insulting a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

They are offended by some silly carton, well it just so happens I find that offensive, they need to buckle up and deal with it in a mature way, instead of having a hissy fit and wanting to kill people.

What do you find more offensive a silly drawing or a bunch of screw loose nutters running around killing people over a silly drawing ?

13 ( +16 / -3 )

Niger is in a bad state right now, with Churches being burned down and people being killed.

Sure the affected Families would love to thank Charlie Hebdo.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

Without evidence some have decided Charlie Hebdo is hate speech. Few have read the cartoons and fewer still have taken the time to understand the satire. All most know is they are angry and that passes for motive. And, still, they have certainty killing is the answer to their offense.

In fact, the slain editor, killed by mad gunmen radicalized by American treatment of Muslims in Iraq, (so they claimed) was certain his opinions were atheistic, not hateful but demonstrating the fallacy of religion. The new editor has stated Charlie Hebdo is using free speech to illustrate the madness of religion as demonstrated by the slaughter at Paris and other acts of violence.

So, before hate speech is taunted with some vague certainty, maybe it would be better to first understand the satire. Second, since killing innocent people is all the "radicals" have to offer, maybe they shouldn't be so ready to think that's what pleases Allah. Of course, there isn't any appeal to madness. Madness isn't interested in the finer points of free societies they have no knowledge of or experience in. But the madmen are quite certain they need to kill because of cartoons.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Well when Arabs burning Israel or American flag it is also hates peach because it offends my country, so if they burn my flag should I start murdering people according to their logic

11 ( +16 / -5 )

I haven't read any comments that support the murder of the journalists. I think we all agree that those murders were wrong.

Hate Speech is law in many (not all) Western countries.

The purpose of the law is to prosecute people who insult others depending on race, religion or ethnicity.

Publishing insulting material against Jews, Muslims, blacks, holocaust victims, homosexuals is illegal in most countries (not France).

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

There is no religion book stating "take a kalashnikov and kill".... those doing that under the name of a god are not doing good for their religion and are just plain murderers manipulated by extremist with very down on earth motivation.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

To bad for upset Muslims. The entire world needs to stand up to all fanatics and ideologues, freedom of the individual is What matters most.

The reason for freedom of speech is specifically to allow a person to say What they wish without being killed by government, religion, mobs of people or the village.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

I wonder when these muslim countries will stop their offensive lampooning of Jews?

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Good. More Muhammad covers are essential for dragging the Middle East kicking and screaming into the modern era.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

@ Burning Bush

fyi: "We've reported this week on the anti-Semitic outburst by designer John Galliano in Paris that cost him his job at Christian Dior. It could cost him more than that - up to six months in prison and some $31,000 in fines if he's convicted. That's because French law allows for the prosecution of public insults based on religion, race, ethnicity or national origin - hate speech, in other words."

ref: http://www.npr.org/2011/03/03/134239713/France-Isnt-The-Only-Country-To-Prohibit-Hate-Speech

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The magazines are hate speech.

You are absolutely right. I think so. But no one is making you buy it.

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

True, but it is satire and for the people that like to read it, fine. The people that don't, can read something else. The power lies within the reader and NOT with the artists. The writers and artists just use their talents to express their art in print or photography and writing. Us as consumers have the power and choice to either buy it or not. For someone to think they have the absolute right to dictate to someone what they can or cannot say is ludicrous, not mention insulting. The problem with radical Islam is, just like Bill Clinton said the other day, he hit the nail on the head. If you go to their countries you have to follow their laws and rules and codes and conduct pertaining to Islam as to not offend anyone. They come to our country and they don't want to follow our rules and laws and don't think they have to. Islam trumps over every man made law and if we don't like it, they threaten us with death. This is utter madness and they have no right. If the radicals don't like it, they can voice their opinions, but they don't have the right to threaten ANYONE with murder.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Offense is taken, not given.

An ignorant statement lacking the profundity you thought it had.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Just asking for another attack. If it happens, you brought it on yourself. No sympathy from me.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

The long list of Muslim's grievances against the West is never ending. Even without these satire cartoons, still Muslims would complain that men made law is no used for them since they are superior with Allah's law?. There are more than plenty of hate speech in Islamic ideology such as dividing people into three groups: believers, people of the book ( Jews & Christian), and non-believers. In reality, Arab Muslims view themselves as superior to non-Arab Muslims such as Malaysian, Pakistan....Discrimination, racism, and abusive of women are alive and the norm in Muslim world, in the name of Allah! Muslims blew up Buddha statue, destroy and burn churches, kill the infidels... and cried out about Islamophobia!. The culture clash and even war are unavoidable, unless Muslims are willing to modernize their beliefs and stop imposing Muslim's law on others, especially in pursuing the caliphate for Islamic world on earth. The nation building with Islamic world produces no result. Only serious mindset and the will to confront any religious falsehood will allow civilization to flourish. Crooked politicians are passing the bulk to next generation, for bloods are on their hands.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Enforcement of hate speech laws in society is solely a matter for the judiciary. If a indivdual or group feels a particular person or publication has commited an offence or breached France's principal piece of hate speech legislation that would be investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the civil or criminal justice system. Jihadists carrying out murderous acts of terrorism will forever bring shame to Islam and justified retribution will follow.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

'I wonder when these muslim countries will stop their offensive lampooning of Jews?'

Not just Jews, Christians and Hindus too, but Jews are often singled out for particular hatred. They don't just lampoon, they spew hatred of a race. It's interesting that we don't hear too many tantrums and screams of anger about this from Muslims living in the countries who produce this really vicious propaganda.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The Devil hides behind and within every religion, Christian, muslim, budhist, hindu, etc. So what do you expect? Remember the crusades? A new devilish religion sprung up, and an already established devilish religion came on the offensive. They were no different from each other.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This French magazine, tabloid to be more precise, caters to the ignorant bigots and Neo-Nazi zealots, and they make money by appealing to this fringe groups by insulting minority groups, all under the guise of satire.

These tabloids, and I personally support their right to exist and express their bigotry, are simple minded and appeal to simple minded neo-nazis.

Muslims are willing to die for their beliefs, the foolish bigots that publish these discriminatory cartoons will get what's coming to them.

Like a schoolyard bully who pesters a weaker child, one day, the weaker kid will punch back.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

'This French magazine, tabloid to be more precise, caters to the ignorant bigots and Neo-Nazi zealots, and they make money by appealing to this fringe groups by insulting minority groups, all under the guise of satire.'

A favourite target of Charlie Hebdo is the knuckle-dragging racist and all-round bigot Le Pen and her ideas.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

btw the title should read "Latest Charlie Hebdo cover continues to upset Jihadist & extermist world".

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Crusades are a bad example as most were conducted within Europe to exterminate some Christian sects.

Only a few were conducted in the ME.

Charlie Hebdo might be for Freedom but their Cartoons are causing innocent people in other countries to be persecuted and killed. Guess everyone is fine with that, extremists can and will twist anything in their favour and to justiffy their actions. So let's feed them more things to be upset about.

Face plant.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

A favourite target of Charlie Hebdo is the knuckle-dragging racist and all-round bigot Le Pen and her ideas.

Any minority group is fair game for Charlie and minorities are their favorite target.

Every school kids knows, if you go around the schoolyard tossing insults at everybody, sooner or later somebody is going to smack you upside the head to teach you a lesson.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

'Any minority group is fair game for Charlie and minorities are their favorite target.'

Charlie Hebdo continually makes fun of the Catholic Church which provoked anger from that organisation but with no violence or threats of violence. Catholics are not a minority in France. Your claims that it panders to racists or picks on minorities seem to show very little knowledge of what is a left wing publication.

'Every school kids knows, if you go around the schoolyard tossing insults at everybody, sooner or later somebody is going to smack you upside the head to teach you a lesson.'

Your playground analogy is a good one. Children react with violence because they are children and should be told that isn't how we behave in the adult world. I remember my elementary school teachers telling me that. In a grown-up secular democracy like France other groups who had their feelings hurt by Charlie Hebdo didn't throw tantrums or threaten murder, they expressed their dislike in a civil, adult manner. The childish bullies here are those who threaten violence, not people exercising their right to free speech in an adult country.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Your playground analogy is a good one.

Indeed it is, the point being that only a childish bully would persistently insult somebody else, especially because they're a different skin color.

There's nothing "civil" and "adult" about bigoted cartoons that intentionally target minorities.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Peace,Harmony and understanding can only be reached via dialogue, never by force or intimidation.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

"Latest Charlie Hebdo cover continues to upset Muslim world."

Well, too bad. I am offended by bloggers being lashed in Saudi Arabia for disagreeing with the government.

Iran called "the continued publishing of Muhammad caricatures “provocative” and an insult to Islam."

And? If I want to insult Islam, too bad. Iran insults Jews and secularism daily.

"....calling the newest cover image of Prophet Muhammad a blasphemous and irresponsible act."

Blasphemous. Puh-lease. France is a secular nation and doesn't submit to your god. And irresponsible? Puh-lease. Irresponsible is picking fights with Europe you cannot and will not win just fanning your stupid Islamist ideology in the obvious attempt to out trump the idiot Fundy problem you got.

“offensive words might lead to further bloodshed.”

Ya think? 'Cause I tell you something: most fair minded Americans and Europeans are offended, gasp, when people from foreign lands with different, oh who they hell am I kidding, inferior values, try to threaten us into not thinking what we do think, and stop of from saying what we think.,

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

JTDanMan and others.

You don't realise that you are just as much a part of the problem as a whole.

By claiming they are inferior, etc you are ruling out any peaceful resolution from the start.he

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

'Indeed it is, the point being that only a childish bully would persistently insult somebody else, especially because they're a different skin color.'

Islam is not a skin color. It's an opinion. As such, it is open to both barrels.

'There's nothing "civil" and "adult" about bigoted cartoons that intentionally target minorities.'

I see you refuse to take on board the idea that Charlie Hebdo attacked all ideas, no matter if they were in the minority or not. The real question you refuse to answer is the violent reaction from a particular group. No comment on why that is?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

It"s Me

The problem is people who use violence to win an argument.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Whatever you guys hv views about of this French magazine but it's far better than Quran's ideology. This French magazine never say to kill people but Quran ? Yes do

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That is the narrow sighted view that has plagued humanity for millennia.

Force is exerted from all sides may it be violent, economically or whatever. Yes, Ghandi also used force but of a different type.

He didn't say you are bad and evil or similar like many posters here do. The future lies in Humanism and its universal acceptance by ALL.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It's Me

Your words make no sense.

The problem is killing someone for insulting your religion.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yes, those are Criminals, no argument there.

Treat them as any other Criminal not as a Muslim, enemy or whatever.

They are no better than the mother who set her baby alight for whatever reason.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If someone is offended by the contents of a publication let him take the offender to court. Tie him up in costly litigation. Campaign for new legislation. But once you grab a Kalashnikov and start shooting, you're a murderer. Period.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Less than two generations ago these "satire" magazines were depicting blacks as monkeys, Jews with a pointy nose and Asians all with slanty eyes. The rest of the world has since moved past that.

Now, since France has a large immigrant community the satire magazines have started targeting brown people because they know plenty of bigots inside France will lap up the material.

These zenophobic magazines that make money by targeting vulnerable minorities have no place in a civilized society.

Let this incident be a lesson to racist bullies the world over, if you keep insulting people of a different color because you perceive that they are "inferior" to you, then one day you'll get what's coming to you.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

No, if someone is offended by the contents of someone speech, they can grow up and shut their pie-holes.

Or be Japanese.

Your pick.

I prefer living in a free society, where someone can 'insult' my beliefs -- y'know, challenge them, and in return I can do the same. More importantly, all of us can challenge

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

OK, let's publish together some 'Blackface' or similar cartoons. Still funny.

Or be Japanese.

What is that supposed to mean? And thanks I am fine as a European and Buddhist.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

JTDanManKilling someone it's mention in Quran verses 8.12 8.399.29They are following their holy book and doing their job to killing someone and speaking lies according Al Taquiya. Read yourself. All Islamic countries didn't condemned Paris atack unlike they are condemning Israel on Gaza isues. Most of Muslim world blaming on French magazine for insult Islam instead condemning terrorist. First read Quran to know Islamic ideology after judge that Islam is a peaceful or not

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Burning Bush:

" I didn't divulge my personal views on the matter, I merely noted that the magazine would easily be classified as Hate Speech in countries that have Hate Speech laws. "

Fine. But if you use that roundhuse definition consistently, you´d have to ban any critical speech as well as a lot of religious scripture, including, most poignantly, the Koran.

Is that what you want? If not, if you selectively want to ban speech that is critical of one particular ideology, you don´t want an application of law, you want submission.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"According to mainstream Islamic tradition, any physical depiction of the Prophet Muhammad — even a respectful one — is considered blasphemous" So does that equate to killing?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In the minds of the extremists and fanatics, yes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

'Less than two generations ago these "satire" magazines were depicting blacks as monkeys, Jews with a pointy nose and Asians all with slanty eyes. The rest of the world has since moved past that.'

Attacking people on the basis of something they are unable to do anything about such as race is completely different to attacking ideas. Muslims proudly tell us that people of all races are welcome into Islam. I can ridicule the beliefs of Judaism without being an anti-Semite. This ridiculous line of argument has been discredited by some thinking Muslims themselves.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Fine. But if you use that roundhuse definition consistently, you´d have to ban any critical speech as well as a lot of religious scripture, including, most poignantly, the Koran.

Where and when did I say that I personally supported Hate Speech legislation. In fact I reiterated that I personally stand for free speech above all else. I merely pointed out that the magazines are in violation of Hate Speech laws, where they are in place.

Let's not forget our history though, the Nazis initially targeted one particular religion. And when the Nazis started it was with insults and "satire" publications distributed throughout German cities depicting Jews as pointed nosed people etc.

"Harmless jokes" ??? I don't think so.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Burning Bush: Less than two generations ago these "satire" magazines were depicting blacks as monkeys, Jews with a pointy nose and Asians all with slanty eyes. The rest of the world has since moved past that.

I guess that, technically, you're right, as 'within the last few years' IS "less than two generations ago", but why not just say 'within the last few years'?

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/unmournable-bodies

Blacks have hardly had it easier in Charlie Hebdo: one of the magazine’s cartoons depicts the Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira, who is of Guianese origin, as a monkey (naturally, the defense is that a violently racist image was being used to satirize racism); another portrays Obama with the black-Sambo imagery familiar from Jim Crow-era illustrations.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

one of the magazine’s cartoons depicts the Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira, who is of Guianese origin, as a monkey

I knew that they were bad, but not even I suspected that they were that bad.

I agree that violence is not the answer, but frankly, if I were in France and some Neo-Nazis were verbally insulting a young black girl or a young muslim girl I might just turn to violence to resolve the situation.

Insults based on race, religion or ethnicity are a boundary I personally wouldn't tolerate let alone pass off as harmless fun.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

'Insults based on race, religion and ethnicity'

If you can't see why the word 'religion' doesn't belong in the category of race or ethnicity, your argument is disingenuous. It's the same thing as saying 'Insults based on race, political party affiliation and ethnicity'. I'm sure you'd agree that's a nonsensical sentence. I've noticed many people can't bring themselves to say what they really mean - religious opinion should be given the kind of privileged status not granted to other opinions. That seems to be your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong here and if I'm not, please tell us why religious opinion deserves such privileged status.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No matter what there is no justification for slaughtering people because you feel slighted, there is something fundamentally wrong with your thinking if you try to justify that even in some slight, twisted or vague way it's ok.

Murder is wrong full stop, there is no bigger crime except mass murder which is what these mad bstards did.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If you can't see why the word 'religion' doesn't belong in the category of race or ethnicity, your argument is disingenuous.

Considering that Judaism is a religion, do you condone, accept and tolerate Nazi vilification of Jewish people?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

'Considering that Judaism is a religion, do you condone, accept and tolerate Nazi vilification of Jewish people?'

There are many secular Jews who find the beliefs of Judaism ridiculous. They have the right to believe and say that and so do I. That doesn't make us anti-Semites. The vilification of the Jews as a race is a different question and one you refuse to take on board by conflating race with opinion. I despise neo-Nazi idiots and Islamic countries vilifying Jews as a race. It has already been pointed out that the mad uproar in many Islamic countries over a crude cartoon depicting a historical figure who died over a thousand years ago is many decibels higher than voices in these countries against truly foul propaganda vilifying Jews as a race. It's something worth considering.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Western democracy and culture is totally incompatible to any Islamic faith and cannot live together.

We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us....Mark Twain

3 ( +3 / -0 )

We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us....Mark Twain

Well put.

It's best to live and let live, and respect people who are different from you.

Muslims the world over, in Europe, Algeria, Malaysia and Indonesia have consistently pointed out that they find these cartoons extremely offensive and deeply disrespectful.

The joke is over, this magazine is looking to make a profit from insulting others and it's gone too far.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The muslim world continues to be "upset" about some cartoons, yet we do not see any mass demonstrations or unconditional (without "but" and "if") condemnations of the murders. If you want to a clearer demonstration of the clash of civilizations, I don´t know what you´d want.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

'It's best to live and let live, and respect people who are different from you.'

Tell that to some of the leaders of the countries infuriated by crude cartoons who murder 'blasphemers' and those who decide Islam is not for them.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Religions can make rules for their own followers but not for those who don't follow such religions.

To think they can is ridiculous.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Wow, lots of "two wrongs make a right" rationalization in this thread

When did mocking someone ever bring them around to your way of thinking?

As for...

(Re) 'Insults based on race, religion and ethnicity':

If you can't see why the word 'religion' doesn't belong in the category of race or ethnicity, your argument is disingenuous

...what about Catholic vs Protestant in Belfast? Should we encourage the Hindu and Sikh diasporas to insult one another? How about Sunnis and Shias outside the Middle East - more slander, please?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sensenosocommon:

" ...what about Catholic vs Protestant in Belfast? Should we encourage the Hindu and Sikh diasporas to insult one another? How about Sunnis and Shias outside the Middle East - more slander, please? "

How does that answer Jimizo`s comment that religions and ideologies should not be mislabelled as "race"? Are you are now saying that Catholics, Protestants, Sunnis, and Shias are all different races?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If any satire magazine publish degrading photos of the Emperor of Japan then surely Japanese people would take offence, and there's a very good chance that a few extremists might respond with violence. The Muslim world is responding the same way, Muslims across the globe are condemning this and a handful of extremists responded with violence.

If some guy starts insulting my wife because she's Asian or Buddhist then first I'd tell him to stop. If he keeps insulting her because he hates Buddhism because he's an ignorant bigot then sooner or later I'm going to respond with violence.

Not that I condone violence, but some people, racists especially, are asking for it.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Burning Bush:

To point out the obvious once more. The emperor is a living person, not a historical figure.

And by the way, if the Japanese embassies around the world called for murder of anybody who cartoons the emperor, then yes we would have an issue and cartoons would be called for. But for your information: They don´t do that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Doesn't change the fact that no matter what you cant run around murdering people because you feel offended, burning bush seems to think other wise.

No outrage about these murders but lots about the cartoons, seems to be something wrong with this picture.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

No outrage about these murders but lots about the cartoons, seems to be something wrong with this picture.

How often does a stray NATO bomb kill dozens of completely innocent civilians in Afghanistan?

No candles for them I guess.

No "Je suis Afghan child" plastered throughout the press.

When innocent civilians die, I'm outraged.

When neo-nazis who make money from insulting minorities die, I'm less outraged.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Burning Bush:

" How often does a stray NATO bomb kill dozens of completely innocent civilians in Afghanistan? "

That is a completely different issue. With such a roundhouse generalization you can pretty much excuse everything. The issue here is precisely free speech and if French law applies in France, or Shariah law. Why do you keep trying to obfuscate that?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

'When neo-nazis who make money from insulting minorities die, I'm less outraged.'

The staff of Charlie Hebdo were murdered by people better described as fascists. I pointed out that Charlie Hebdo is a left wing mag which satirized the far right in France mercilessly but you seem unable to take a point inconvenient to your argument. To call the murdered people at Charlie Hebdo 'neo-Nazis' is ridiculous and very low. Incidentally, seeing as you view people who draw irreverent cartoons as 'neo-Nazi', what would you call the people who carried out the slaughter and the people who pump out the vicious, racist propaganda against Jews from Islamic countries?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Burning Bush:

" When neo-nazis who make money from insulting minorities die, I'm less outraged. "

I had overlooked that line. You are calling the Charlie Hedbo editors "neo-nazis"?? Are you for real? Do you even realize that Hedbo lampoons everybody, but if there is a political leaning it is left-wing?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Niger is in a bad state right now, with Churches being burned down and people being killed thats not Hebdo fault, thats the fault of the Niger authorities in not doing enough to stamp out extremists spreading hate and false teachings of Islam

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Unbelievable how some on here try to justify the slaughter of people in a civilised country by religious fanatics, killing people because they don't agree with the joke, have no sense of humour, believe in some mysterious figure who supposedly lived sometime ago and are overly sensitive about it tells the rest of us you/they need to get a grip on reality.

This terrorist act cannot be justified so please stop trying because all you are doing is showing the rest of us you have radical views.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Don't forget that just a picture of Mohammad is grounds for outrage, whether it's being satirical or not. It's easy to pick out the French newspaper but it doesn't really get to the heart of the issue.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Burning Bush 08:21PM: " sooner or later I'm going to respond with violence."

Many believe violence is a reasonable response to insult and many find insult in anything they either cannot comprehend or haven't considered too carefully, like satire.

What is clear in the slaughter at Paris, cartoons are a poor justification for killing. Some, even with the acknowledgement of this heinous crime, still suggest violence is all they have to offer. That may define them and their limited resources; it is in fact a sign of a primitive mind like those of the murderers at Paris. Sad actually.

"We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us....Mark Twain" . . . maybe a more careful reading will reveal the wisdom Twain offers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib:

" Don't forget that just a picture of Mohammad is grounds for outrage "

Not just a picture. Simply saying something negative about Mohammed in words gets you the same reaction, as the many people living under islamist death threats can certify to. And it is not a new issue either; have we all forgotten Salman Rushdie?

The issue is not a particular cartoon, it is freedom of speech and the decision of modern societies defend it or not.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

“Inanimate art cannot yell back, it cannot hit back. The only way art wins against force if you can put the attack itself on display. See how that looks in the bright light of day, see how that holds up to history.”

Rachel Maddow (in reference to attempts to destroy image of Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" on display in museum).
-1 ( +0 / -1 )

We can analyze, opinion, dissect, compare, all for the vanity of being heard as if our thoughts matter... It's all madness, and in that, it doesn't really matter. Live, Love, be Happy. Try harder not to be shaped by these events or let them hinder your ability to be kind. Live in the present moment. Many of these arguments only prove the fool is winning.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It doesn't matter whether the Muslims upset or not upset they are same. They want to kill infidels anyway. There's no medicine to cure those Muslim extremists and they do not have tolerate with insulting Allah and Islam region. Western politic is too corrupted and too late to prevent crash between Freedom and Islam religion. Majority of politicians are still telling their citizens Multiculturalism is doing well but it's bull-shit. Only society has to swallow bitter pills and worrying about their welfare day and night. Politicians are smiling and pretending for votes from Muslims voters. In the end, their citizens have to pay the price for politicians' madness. Japan must learn from Western European nation's Multiculturalism problem.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I pointed out that Charlie Hebdo is a left wing mag

Call it what you will. But I personally have little respect for people who draw black people as monkeys and target minority groups.

Do a search on the newsletters that the Nazi party distributed in the early 30s mocking the religion of Judaism.

Insults that target groups of people, whether they be Jewish, Muslim, black or whatever are childish and have no place in a civilized society.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

As long as each side of this ideological disagreement see the other as inferior and worthy of scorn, there will be conflict.

Many in the West view the Muslim world as backwards and uncivilized. Many in the Muslim world view the West as corrupt and an affront to God.

Right now, both sides are demanding that the other side abandon their system of beliefs and accept theirs. That is not going to happen. Ever.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It's not clear "the West" is "demanding that the other side abandon their system of beliefs".

What is clear is: "the West" is asking that mom's and dad's not be slaughtered in their places of work because of a cartoon. The West is asking if Satire is unacceptable, where next will madmen kill because the next offense is discovered? An "offense" that demands silence and slaughter, always.

In effect, some would have it that slaughter is the new world order when someone decides they are offended.

Since there is no end to offense when looking for snakes in the grass, some have decided they will be the judge, jury and executioner of all that displeases them, and, worst; that they "know" for everyone else what to be displeased about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Burning Bush you are more concerned with this stupid magazine and what it did than anything that Boko Haram has done in Africa recently, or anything that ISil has done, or what some radicals did last week, where is your head and heart at, are you in fact in support of slaying those who disagree with your views?

No outrage over these mad groups boko haram or isil but lets rage at a cartoon artist ?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

How does that answer Jimizo`s comment that religions and ideologies should not be mislabelled as "race"? Are you are now saying that Catholics, Protestants, Sunnis, and Shias are all different races?

Hope that sudden reflex didn't hurt your knee.

Jimizo never implied that. He replied to:

Insults based on race, religion or ethnicity are a boundary I personally wouldn't tolerate let alone pass off as harmless fun.

...with a a personal opinion that religion isn't a sufficiently deserving (demographic) identifier to be included with race and ethnicity. In other words, it's open season to insult people for their religion (BTW claiming that it's the faith, not the person doesn't wash).

To think that the victims of ISIS, those blown up in Catholic pubs, or the Jews murdered in the Parisian deli were never victims of sectarian insult and innuendo - the untermensch narrative - is naive in the extreme.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Burning Bush

You obviously forgot to mention the "notice" from Charb about that famous drawing where the minister is drawn as a female monkey, at first there is the FRONT NATIONAL logo on the picture, then Charb explained "" By associating the name of Mrs Taubira and the words " banana "and" monkey "the racist far right FRONT NATIONAL hope to pass a racist slogan, a colonialist insult to a popular joke. " So this is all the opposite to that you think.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi also issued a statement of condemnation, warning that, “offensive words might lead to further bloodshed.”

Ever more terrorist attacks will also lead to further bloodshed.

Muslims should respect the freedom of expression rights in the countries that they live. Can a Jew in Gaza get Muslims to stop insulting them continuously even on children television shows? Oh that's right, Jews can't live in Gaza without being murdered.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Sensenotsocommon You are right that I don't regard religion in the same category as race or ethnicity. I wonder how far you'd go to avoid dealing with ideas or 'insulting' sensibilities. Can I ask if you'd avoid ridiculing political ideas? Is it just those who threaten and carry out violence who get a pass? Can anyone, say the neo-nazis get their ideas protected by arming themselves with Kalashnikovs and carrying out an atrocity? I wonder if Charlie Hebdo's staff had been massacred by neo-nazis Burning Bush would have had little sympathy for the staff for treading on sensibilities. Incidentally, can anyone name a neo-nazi group which comes near the psychopathic ambition and murderous scope of IS, Boko Harem or Al Qaida?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's not clear "the West" is "demanding that the other side abandon their system of beliefs".

Of course it's not, if you look at it through a civilized western lens. Look at it through the eyes of an Islamist though, and it's clear as glass.

"the West" is asking that mom's and dad's not be slaughtered in their places of work because of a cartoon. The West is asking if Satire is unacceptable

But to whom is the West making that request, and asking that question? The Muslim extremists? I think they've made their position on that issue extremely clear. Itself? Well, we all know what the answer will be.

Looking at the historical record of the interaction between Christianity (the west) and Islam ( the Muslim world) one could make a pretty strong case that a mutually acceptable, negotiated settlement is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. There has always been conflict, and it will continue. With the advances in technology and an ever shrinking world, this conflict has taken on a whole new dimension and is as, or more, dangerous than ever.

There is going to be a big fight sooner or later, and if the West wants to survive it has to get its head in the game. The western aligned nations are going to have to get serious, and as a unified front defend what they have built and eliminate those who would bring them down.

With the massive outpouring of sentiment over the attack on Charlie Hebdo, western society has made a powerful statement on their commitment to the fundamental principles that are the foundation of their civilization. As tragic as this incident is, it has served as an ideological call to arms and that is something the West needs in the struggle that lays ahead.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Burnin Bush ,

Finally, here is the far right newspaper (minute) that did trigger the drawing from Charb to denounce latent racism, the text reads "Smart like a monkey Taubira found the banana" well, something like that.... the newspaper was condemned for racial insult.

http://www.metronews.fr/info/une-sur-christiane-taubira-ce-que-risque-minute/mmkl!jPPYmyLqWen1c/

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Look at it through the eyes of an Islamist" - "eliminate those who would bring them down" - "an ideological call to arms" - "Christianity (the west)"

Some here have decided "the west" should adopt the desperate madness of Islamist or risk destruction and that the west is a Christian idea that should arm itself. Some would have the mad gunman determine the way forward with each "side" arming for the apocalypse.

The "There is going to be a big fight sooner or later" crowd would have wholesale slaughter of all Muslims for fear that slaughter of Christians is the only outcome possible. Shallow fear mongering is always an option.

Some have better things to do and better ways to accomplish disarming fascist madmen. Other want global war for imaginary sky sprits that loftily decide the thoughts of the mentally ill. Amusing and sad, if you have only one drum, why not beat it loudly and long even against reason, why not?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

You can change your religion but you cant change your race, there is a huge difference in comparing the two.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Sensenotsocommon You are right that I don't regard religion in the same category as race or ethnicity. I wonder how far you'd go to avoid dealing with ideas or 'insulting' sensibilities.

As someone who has himself been insulted, threatened and assaulted for being born into the 'wrong' religion?

I wasn't browbeaten then, and certainly won't be now, thank you.

No-one should be the target of an untermensch narrative.

Insult and embarrass the jihadis, those self-serving pretend muslims, NOT the faith they have hijacked.

Isolate the two, and the majority can reclaim Islam from the charlatan kingdoms, caliphates and cells wreaking so much murderous havoc and hatred in our beautiful, shared world.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

'You can change your religion but you cant change your race, there is a huge difference in comparing the two.'

There are quite a few in the Muslim world who believe those who leave Islam for another religion or become non-believers should be slaughtered. The same flag-burning idiots are often the first to tell us we should respect the rights of the religious not to have their feelings 'insulted'.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The same flag-burning idiots are often the first to tell us we should respect the rights of the religious not to have their feelings 'insulted'.

Why are you insulted by flag burning?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sensenotsocommon:

" Why are you insulted by flag burning? "

Turn that around: Why are you insulted by Mohammed cartoons? Either there is freedom of expression or there isn`t. If it is a one-way street, it is not freedom.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

'Why are you insulted by flag burning?'

I'm not. The point I was making by calling them 'flag burning idiots' is the fact that they can't get their fevered minds around the idea that France didn't print these cartoons - a magazine in a country with a free press without primitive blasphemy laws did.

As to your previous reply, it seems you also can't bring yourself to say what you really mean. You're clearly an intelligent adult but you refuse to answer the question I posed. It's a simple yes/no question. Do you think that religious beliefs deserve the kind of protection not given to other beliefs? You do seem to believe that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Zaphod,

Ouch. Sore knee again. I'm not insulted by Mohammed cartoons, but I do find them insulting to my fellow man.

By making antisemitic cartoons acceptable, the Nazis got ordinary people - just like you and me - to tolerate making Jews identify themselves with the Star of David. After that corralling them into closed off ghettoes was natural; their transportation in cattle trucks was a rational next step too... do you see how that works?

Jimizo,

Do you think that religious beliefs deserve the kind of protection not given to other beliefs?

When people's beliefs are challenged, they're reinforced. Belfast's myriad churches were packed during the Troubles, but many are closing now that there's peace.

You cannot influence people by attacking their faith. You only strengthen the extremists.

You do seem to believe that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

'Do you think that religious beliefs deserve the kind of protection not given to other beliefs?

When people's beliefs are challenged, they're reinforced. Belfast's myriad churches were packed during the Troubles, but many are closing now that there's peace.'

Evasion of biblical proportions. Why can't you just answer the question clearly and say what you mean? You clearly believe that religious opinion should be allowed privileges not granted to other opinions ( I've come across apologists for this who make Michael Howard in the famous Paxman interview seem honest and to the point in comparison ). Just say it. Now, perhaps you could tell us why you think religion deserves such a privileged status. I'll be honest and to the point - I'm an atheist who doesn't understand why some think religious opinion deserves such kid-gloves treatment and I'd like to understand why they think this way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some here have decided "the west" should adopt the desperate madness of Islamist or risk destruction and that the west is a Christian idea that should arm itself.

I’m sure there are people that think that way, but I’m not one of them. On the contrary, I believe that the West’s lack of an extreme, violent reaction when their belief system is attacked; is one of the more positive defining distinctions separating them from the Muslim world. In no way do I advocate the adoption of Islamist type behavior, but I do believe that a vigorous response is warranted. Note I said vigorous and not violent.

When I refer to an ideological call to arms I’m saying just that. An ideological, call to arms. Because above everything else this is an ideological issue. The two sides don’t see the world the same way and both sides see their way as the best way.

The big fight that is coming is not so much about slaughter and bloodshed (there will unfortunately be too much anyway) but a contest between two competing ideologies with the prize being the dominant position in determining the direction that human society will move in the future. Is it going to be Liberte, Égalité, Fraternité or the Shahada and Sharia? The winner will be determined by how many followers they can win to their side. Simple as that.

Although I don’t see it myself, Islam has a strong appeal for a very large number of people all over the world, almost 2 billion. There is something in the message that resonates with all kinds of people. The recent move into cyber space has given the radical elements of Islam an open door to promote their world vision and the results can be seen on the news practically every day. The only way that western society can counter that is to promote itself in the most positive way, by example. The West needs to clearly demonstrate that its principles of liberty, freedom of expression, respecting basic human rights and equality for all people are indeed the best way and then convince the most number of people that it would be best for them, too. It won’t be easy or quick but if western society remains firm in its commitment to its ideals it has a good chance of prevailing. The real challenge is, as it has always been, to truly walk the talk.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

SenseNotSoCommon: By making antisemitic cartoons acceptable, the Nazis got ordinary people - just like you and me

Well you could just show us the antisemitic propaganda that exists in the Middle East today, but my guess is that won't be a big talking point for you.

After reading your comments I'm not sure if you want to just ban insulting Islam or insulting all religions. And at the end of the day, who decides what is insulting? Simply showing any picture of Mohammad, satire or not, will enrage the fanatics. So do we ban that? Should we ban Satanic Verses? Can you clearly define what you want?

To be honest with you, your position sounds like you want me to be tolerant of other people's intolerance.....to prove that I'm tolerant. You don't have any special enlightenment, and I suspect you have a lot of fear of extremists that you don't want to come to terms with. Don't cower to them and present it like you're just trying to protect the average, peaceful Muslim.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's fine to both condemn Charlie Hebdo and the killing of people for being offended.

Condemn; just don't kill

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Many in the West view the Muslim world as backwards and uncivilized. Many in the Muslim world view the West as corrupt and an affront to God.

Both views are largely true.

Right now, both sides are demanding that the other side abandon their system of beliefs and accept theirs.

I don't see how anyone can come to such a conclusion. The only side demanding anything are the Islamic terrorists that are demanding that the West give up their legal tradition protecting the right to freedom of speech.

By making antisemitic cartoons acceptable, the Nazis got ordinary people - just like you and me - to tolerate making Jews identify themselves with the Star of David. After that corralling them into closed off ghettoes was natural; their transportation in cattle trucks was a rational next step too... do you see how that works?

No, I do not.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You clearly believe that religious opinion should be allowed privileges not granted to other opinions

If I knew what this mantra of other opinions referred to, I might be able to answer that.

I do know that you cannot influence people by attacking their beliefs.

I suspect you have a lot of fear of extremists that you don't want to come to terms with.

I've none whatsoever, actually. What do you fear, SuperLib? Yourself?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now more than any other time in history the bottom for most if not all companies, large and small is the bottom line profits. Others have learn to bring a company is to interrupt that bottom line. When consumers pressure the sponsors of such derogatory statements or cartoons, it is amazing how soon that company changes their attitudes. Violence only breeds more violence. Killing those just working there is pointless and extremely wrong. The company itself stays intact and more intent to put out more disturbing material if this is what you feel. Many throws around that word freedom without realizing freedom is not free. You are given those freedoms by those of us that had served on the front line to ensure these freedoms. With that being said, I would hope to think that we will not run away from these rights many gave their life for you to have .I will say it again and again, all religions are dangerous in one way or the other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SenseNotSoCommon: I do know that you cannot influence people by attacking their beliefs.

What constitutes an attack? If I draw a picture of Mohammad on a piece of paper, is that considered an attack? If I'm gay and get married to another man, am I guilty of offending a religion that does not allow that? Do we have to accept that all offensive actions are attacks and must not be done?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If I draw a picture of Mohammad on a piece of paper, is that considered an attack? If I'm gay and get married to another man, am I guilty of offending a religion that does not allow that? Do we have to accept that all offensive actions are attacks and must not be done?

The answers to your questions are entirely dependent on whom you ask. Ask those questions to any of the thousands of Muslims that are demonstrating against Charlie Hebdo and burning French flags around the world and I'm sure the response would be a resounding, yes!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Religion, by its nature, an improbable assumption about the unknown and unknowable, demands adherence, unquestioning obedience on all dictates.

It serves the powerful of religion to have nothing of its demands open to criticism, satire or academic examination.

If religion is to be served, all will bow and all will bow as one, until none can stand.

Religion's needs are the elimination of all human invention and dependence on a very privileged few to assign to the survivors their identities and roles.

Why anyone is resisting this necessity for religion's existence is the true cause of all the world's sufferings. That was the goal of the murderers at Paris, and they proved their point, and a cartoon was all they needed to justify their actions.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SuperLib,

If I'm gay and get married to another man, am I guilty of offending a religion that does not allow that?

That's your business entirely, and not for someone else's religion to comment on.

Do we have to accept that all offensive actions are attacks...?

Most sane people would concur that all offensive actions are attacks, yes.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

'You clearly believe that religious opinion should be allowed privileges not granted to other opinions

If I knew what this mantra of other opinions referred to, I might be able to answer that.'

How about politics? I referred to it at least three times. Can cartoonists ridicule political figures and ideas?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Caricaturing terrorist or a religion is an attack in a secular country and so what the Kalanishkov attack was a normal response ? I am really astonished by the comments I can read here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Thanks, Jimizo.

You already discounted politics yourself as fair game, and I couldn't agree more.

I'd really love to know the other opinions so we can look at the bigger picture and not be stuck in silos lobbing stones over impenetrable walls.

Cheers

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

'Thanks, Jimizo.

You already discounted politics yourself as fair game, and I couldn't agree more.

I'd really love to know the other opinions so we can look at the bigger picture and not be stuck in silos lobbing stones over impenetrable walls.

Cheers'

Thanks to you too, Mr Howard ;).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Thanks to you too, Mr Howard ;).

How can anyone answer:

religious opinion should be allowed privileges not granted to other opinions

...without knowing what those opinions are. The arms lobby? Monsanto? McDonalds? EDL?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Sensenotsocommon This really isn't that difficult. I'm not the only poster who has commented on how unclear and evasive you are being here. This isn't the first time I've seen such slipperiness when this subject comes up. I'll try to nail jelly to the wall as best I can. Here are some opinions. Do you agree with all or some of them?

The beliefs and figures of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion are all fair game. To strip that down further, extraordinary claims of a 6,000 year-old earth, parting seas, virgins conceiving, flying horses and visitations from archangels strongly require questioning in an age of scientific knowledge. People can draw cartoons about this some may find offensive in a free society.

The beliefs and figures of conservatives, socialists, libertarians, liberals, fascists or any other political opinion are fair game as are any of the policies advocated by them, such as trickle-down economics, flat tax rates or increasing Japan's population to 300,000,000. People can draw cartoons about this some may find offensive in a free society.

The figure of a hereditary head of state and the whole idea of a hereditary monarchy is fair game.

The belief that cricket is the greatest sport ever created is fair game. People can draw cartoons about this some may find offensive in a free society.

Oh, one final thing. If extremists with Kalashnikovs were involved in all cases, would it make a difference?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

an age of scientific knowledge

We'll dispense with touching wood, saluting magpies, flinging salt or crossing fingers.

We'll break mirrors with gay abandon, walk under ladders, and sniff dandelions, all worry-free!

Kids forfeit the Tooth Fairy, wishing on a star (unless it's got mouse ears™), and letters to Santa. Zero Eid parties, Mardi Gras, Easter eggs or Hannuka.

No more June brides dressed in white, nothing old, but everything new, damn all borrowed or even blue. Forget tossing the bouquet - that baby's mine.

It's the fantasy of Ron and Maggie, the all-consuming, mystery-free, uncaring no-such-thing-as-society.

Superstitions, moral codes, tossing money-changers from temples? Mindless, unhygienic mumbo-jumbo!

Hail the Great Reboot - a Cultural Revolution!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sense: Most sane people would concur that all offensive actions are attacks, yes.

So then we'd have to ban anything that's offensive to a person's religion belief?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SuperLib,

No need to be Dale Carnegie to realize people see deliberate (especially repeated) offensive actions as attacks.

If Charlie Hebdo had their favorite prophet addressing a group of the world's deities on its latest cover instead of a soliloquy, they may have been seen as more of an equal opportunities offender.

Just as the news we read cherry picks those topics which generate traffic and align with the collective neural path du jour, so the hordes on the muslim street are subject to a copy/paste zeitgeist that they alone are victims.

How do you propose we stop this, SuperLib?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Sensenotsocommon I was going to see if you were going to match Michael Howard's tally of 14 evasions of a simple question. After watching debates on this topic and reading your posts, I shouldn't have doubted your stamina. Mine's exhausted.

I mean this honestly - I enjoyed that. All good fun and all the best.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sense: No need to be Dale Carnegie to realize people see deliberate (especially repeated) offensive actions as attacks.

I don't think you have any kind of workable plan. You'd have to pass sweeping legislation that goes well beyond this one issue, but you avoid the problem by trying to micromanage the debate. If you want me or anyone else to support your position you need to be clear about what it is you're proposing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks, Jimizo.

Pegasus needed counselling, but that was indeed fun.

I'm averse to dichotomous questions because they serve such a narrow perspective. As a lapsed atheist I love what secularism offers, and there's so much value in people's belief systems, too. No-one is intelligent enough to be wrong all the time.

Perhaps you could help SuperLib with his homework?

I don't think you have any kind of workable plan.

Do you? The only thing I'm hearing in this thread is a demand that people renounce their religion for the privilege of a seat at our shining table. Look at any people forced to deny their faith (or any other values) throughout history. Short of genocide, it's counter-productive. They thrive.

How about exposing Wahhabism for the homicidally intolerant doctrine that it is? Or does everyone - M. Hollande included - fear losing Saudi arms deals?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If you don't have a plan or a set of policies that you can spell out then I'm not sure what you are going to accomplish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

If you don't have a plan or a set of policies that you can spell out then I'm not sure what you are going to accomplish.

Start with challenging a regime that doesn't allow women to drive, sends their male 'guardian' a text message if they leave the country, and is only this year allowing them to vote.

The same regime is the one responsible for the wholesale proselytizing of the intolerant brand Islam that gives ISIS license to slaughter en masse.

There's a plan. But we daren't say boo to the Tiffany Taliban.

Nothing to do, of course, with their media holdings (hello, Fox) and multibilliondollar arms purchases. They're simply allies who (coughs) share our values.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sensenotsocommon:

" If Charlie Hebdo had their favorite prophet addressing a group of the world's deities on its latest cover instead of a soliloquy, they may have been seen as more of an equal opportunities offender. "

Charlie Hedbo actually DID put all the favourite deities together in a previous issue. Guess which group alone took offense and respnded with death threats?

If you really believe this "equal opportunities offender" slogan, please list for us the incidences where Buddhist Jihadis murdered people to shouts of "Buddha is great". This claim that all religions are the same is so silly, it is just amazing how some people stick to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What beats my comprehension is why did n't they protest when innocent school children were bombed the other day in Pakistan?.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush and America "gov" should burn. See how they treat someone that saved there butts.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/War-strategies/939253756099975?ref=hl

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I don't think you can say what Charlie Hebdo is hate speech, offense maybe to some but satire can offend. A legal definition is different than a simple dictionary one. Here is a US legal definition:

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What do you find more offensive a silly drawing or a bunch of screw loose nutters running around killing people over a silly drawing ?

There's no reason why you can't be offended by both, and being more offended by one doesn't necessarily excuse the other. There are millions of Muslims out there who condemn the murderers. Just because someone supports free speech doesn't mean they have to support Charlie Hebdo. But the sheeple will carry on with their 'Je suis' group-think...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

hatsoff:

" There are millions of Muslims out there who condemn the murderers. "

I am sure there are, but the demonstrations we see around the muslim world is against the cartoons (which by the way the protesters usually have not seen, they simply take their clues from their imams). And any pro Charlie demonstrator would have a very short half-life indeed in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

You don´t make the problem go away by pretending it does not exist.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites