| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 22:01 - Jan 13 with 2288 views | longlostjack |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 19:17 - Jan 13 by exiledclaseboy |
I doubt he would have but it's gratifying to see that all British media organs (as far as I know) have had the good sense no to re-print these pictures. |
Would you also have preferred "the Life of Brian" not to have been shown ? |  |
|  |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 22:51 - Jan 13 with 2269 views | safe_jack |
If this cover had been printed with the engagement of Muslim leaders/community, there would be nothing controversial about it.
Therein lies the problem, the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed have been done not by Muslims themselves but by people of other faith or no faith.
For example, there is a big difference when a good friend of mine cracks a joke regarding my ethnicity than when some random person I don't know does. I personally don't get offended whoever tells the joke but it does make a difference to a lot of people. So you can see why some muslims (not the Islamist) may feel offended when people mock their faith.
Let us not forget that all different groups of people get offended. Heck, some Swans fans get offended by inflatable sheep. |  | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 23:31 - Jan 13 with 2238 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 22:51 - Jan 13 by safe_jack |
If this cover had been printed with the engagement of Muslim leaders/community, there would be nothing controversial about it.
Therein lies the problem, the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed have been done not by Muslims themselves but by people of other faith or no faith.
For example, there is a big difference when a good friend of mine cracks a joke regarding my ethnicity than when some random person I don't know does. I personally don't get offended whoever tells the joke but it does make a difference to a lot of people. So you can see why some muslims (not the Islamist) may feel offended when people mock their faith.
Let us not forget that all different groups of people get offended. Heck, some Swans fans get offended by inflatable sheep. |
Surely though the rules surrounding any religion only apply by definition to the followers of that religion?
So the depiction of Muhammed by people who are not Moslem should have no relevance to followers?
One would hope of course that depictions are not gratuitous and don't aim to be offensive (and I don't know enough about Charlie Hebdo to be able to judge if they are, or have been, more offensive about Islam than they have been about any other religion - it seems from what I've seen this week that mocking religion, and by that I mean all religion, is a stock in trade and they don't particularly differentiate). Certainly the cover this week, appears to me (from an outsider's perspective) to be one that is not even slightly mocking of Islam, but quite the reverse, albeit I understand that some will just disagree with the depiction full stop. | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 00:28 - Jan 14 with 2217 views | Aquinas |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 22:51 - Jan 13 by safe_jack |
If this cover had been printed with the engagement of Muslim leaders/community, there would be nothing controversial about it.
Therein lies the problem, the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed have been done not by Muslims themselves but by people of other faith or no faith.
For example, there is a big difference when a good friend of mine cracks a joke regarding my ethnicity than when some random person I don't know does. I personally don't get offended whoever tells the joke but it does make a difference to a lot of people. So you can see why some muslims (not the Islamist) may feel offended when people mock their faith.
Let us not forget that all different groups of people get offended. Heck, some Swans fans get offended by inflatable sheep. |
I can kind of understand your point saif.
However, if a random person said something to you in the street it would be aimed at you and a personal verbal attack. Charlie Hebdo insulted everyone, by all accounts the Pope had it worse. It was never a personal attack on Islam, they were not anti-islam, nor against catholics. They just made/will continue to make a living out of mocking religion and gods that don't even exist in the first place. |  | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 02:39 - Jan 14 with 2196 views | safe_jack |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 23:31 - Jan 13 by londonlisa2001 |
Surely though the rules surrounding any religion only apply by definition to the followers of that religion?
So the depiction of Muhammed by people who are not Moslem should have no relevance to followers?
One would hope of course that depictions are not gratuitous and don't aim to be offensive (and I don't know enough about Charlie Hebdo to be able to judge if they are, or have been, more offensive about Islam than they have been about any other religion - it seems from what I've seen this week that mocking religion, and by that I mean all religion, is a stock in trade and they don't particularly differentiate). Certainly the cover this week, appears to me (from an outsider's perspective) to be one that is not even slightly mocking of Islam, but quite the reverse, albeit I understand that some will just disagree with the depiction full stop. |
Someone mocking from the outside may not be against the rules ( I've not studied the Quran) but that doesn't mean it doesn't offend those of the Muslim faith. It can be seen to be more hurtful when an outsider does it, as with anything else.
To me, it's more of a cultural issue in that Muslim majority countries don't tend to have the same freedoms or are not yet accustomed to the European culture of political/religious satire. Religion is so deep rooted in Muslim countries that it would be akin to going to China and mocking Mao Zedong. The state is unstable and one thing that will always remain the same and unites many is their religion.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with Wednesday's cover either. In fact, I find it quite a poignant message and I would have hoped it would resonate with Muslims in Europe. But you'll notice it's the older leaders of the Islamic community who are particularly offended, with time that will hopefully change. | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 02:53 - Jan 14 with 2193 views | safe_jack |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 00:28 - Jan 14 by Aquinas |
I can kind of understand your point saif.
However, if a random person said something to you in the street it would be aimed at you and a personal verbal attack. Charlie Hebdo insulted everyone, by all accounts the Pope had it worse. It was never a personal attack on Islam, they were not anti-islam, nor against catholics. They just made/will continue to make a living out of mocking religion and gods that don't even exist in the first place. |
It's all about how they perceive the cartoons. It wasn't a personal attack but I can see why Muslims with the rise of anti-Islam sentiment may be fearful and misunderstand Charlie Hebdo.
Personally, my Atheism has lead me to enjoy a quite a lot of religious satire. I've routinely mocked both Christianity and Islam. It's not that I believe that Muslims have been targeted or that Charlie Hebdo was an anti-Islamic publication. It's just that I understand that when in a foreign country you may become a little more sensitive to what defines you as a person. | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 16:51 - Jan 14 with 2143 views | union_jack |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 22:51 - Jan 13 by safe_jack |
If this cover had been printed with the engagement of Muslim leaders/community, there would be nothing controversial about it.
Therein lies the problem, the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed have been done not by Muslims themselves but by people of other faith or no faith.
For example, there is a big difference when a good friend of mine cracks a joke regarding my ethnicity than when some random person I don't know does. I personally don't get offended whoever tells the joke but it does make a difference to a lot of people. So you can see why some muslims (not the Islamist) may feel offended when people mock their faith.
Let us not forget that all different groups of people get offended. Heck, some Swans fans get offended by inflatable sheep. |
A fair point but not many offended people go out on a mass rampage killing innocent people.
Let's not be taken in by these people. They are not Muslims carrying out the messages of the Quran or so I am led to believe. They have used this as a vehicle to carry out heinous crimes with some sort of 'justification'. If it wasn't Islam, it would be something else.
I am sure this is similar in the way so called ordinary Germans were given licence to kill Jews (and others) with apparent impunity. There were plenty of people who stepped forward.
Just a bunch of blood thirsty murderers who look for support from an expanding terrorist group. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:18 - Jan 14 with 2118 views | union_jack |
What a good article.
I am appalled as the next person as to what happened in Paris last week. But I do believe the interpretation of freedom of speech is quite subjective. As the author says, the right to freedom of speech should not be a duty to offend.
I heard a Muslim being interviewed in the wake of the attack last week. I don't think he was condoning what had happened but he did say that he loved Mohammed more than his wife, children or anything else. And he meant it.
We are poking at a sleeping lion and as I have said in another post that those responsible for the massacre are not acting on behalf of true Muslims, the more we feel we have the right to offend using freedom of speech as our defence, then these activists will garner more and more support from true Muslims. | |
| |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:25 - Jan 14 with 2110 views | londonlisa2001 |
Interesting piece and I agree with a lot of it, particularly around the limit to free speech and also to some extent the 'bandwagon' like quality of some of the Je Suis Charlie campaign (including, rather disgracefully, the application this week to trademark the slogan).
Have to say though that I believe Mehdi's examples of equivalence in other religions to be seriously flawed. A cartoon of Muhammed is not comparable to a cartoon of the holocaust - it is equivalent to a cartoon of God. Similarly a cartoon of victims of 9/11 is not equivalent - the equivalence there would be Jesus. It is my understanding from what I have seen this week that the title in question has published cartoons on all religions.
He is right in that people get offended all of the time. The reality is though that the offence that a Moslem may feel over a cartoon of Muhammed is no more real or worthy of consideration than the offence that a Christian may have over 'Life of Brian' or 'Jesus Christ Superstar' or anything else. There's not a particular right to never be questioned or teased or mocked for that matter that comes with one religion over any other.
If he is seriously comparing the publication of a cartoon depicting Muhammed with cartoons that would depict a holocaust victim or victims of 9/11 he needs to take a look at himself. A cartoon that depicted the Moslem victims of the recent school attack would be the equivalent, and if any publication did something like that they would be widely and loudly denounced and rightly so. | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:34 - Jan 14 with 2105 views | union_jack |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:25 - Jan 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Interesting piece and I agree with a lot of it, particularly around the limit to free speech and also to some extent the 'bandwagon' like quality of some of the Je Suis Charlie campaign (including, rather disgracefully, the application this week to trademark the slogan).
Have to say though that I believe Mehdi's examples of equivalence in other religions to be seriously flawed. A cartoon of Muhammed is not comparable to a cartoon of the holocaust - it is equivalent to a cartoon of God. Similarly a cartoon of victims of 9/11 is not equivalent - the equivalence there would be Jesus. It is my understanding from what I have seen this week that the title in question has published cartoons on all religions.
He is right in that people get offended all of the time. The reality is though that the offence that a Moslem may feel over a cartoon of Muhammed is no more real or worthy of consideration than the offence that a Christian may have over 'Life of Brian' or 'Jesus Christ Superstar' or anything else. There's not a particular right to never be questioned or teased or mocked for that matter that comes with one religion over any other.
If he is seriously comparing the publication of a cartoon depicting Muhammed with cartoons that would depict a holocaust victim or victims of 9/11 he needs to take a look at himself. A cartoon that depicted the Moslem victims of the recent school attack would be the equivalent, and if any publication did something like that they would be widely and loudly denounced and rightly so. |
I agree with the comparisons you make but a Muslim does get offended at caricatures of Mohammed.
Is it right that we should judge what is offensive and what is not? The fact is that Charlie Hebdo knew what they were doing but continued to 'poke the lion'. See my post above for my thoughts on that. | |
| |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:36 - Jan 14 with 2101 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:25 - Jan 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Interesting piece and I agree with a lot of it, particularly around the limit to free speech and also to some extent the 'bandwagon' like quality of some of the Je Suis Charlie campaign (including, rather disgracefully, the application this week to trademark the slogan).
Have to say though that I believe Mehdi's examples of equivalence in other religions to be seriously flawed. A cartoon of Muhammed is not comparable to a cartoon of the holocaust - it is equivalent to a cartoon of God. Similarly a cartoon of victims of 9/11 is not equivalent - the equivalence there would be Jesus. It is my understanding from what I have seen this week that the title in question has published cartoons on all religions.
He is right in that people get offended all of the time. The reality is though that the offence that a Moslem may feel over a cartoon of Muhammed is no more real or worthy of consideration than the offence that a Christian may have over 'Life of Brian' or 'Jesus Christ Superstar' or anything else. There's not a particular right to never be questioned or teased or mocked for that matter that comes with one religion over any other.
If he is seriously comparing the publication of a cartoon depicting Muhammed with cartoons that would depict a holocaust victim or victims of 9/11 he needs to take a look at himself. A cartoon that depicted the Moslem victims of the recent school attack would be the equivalent, and if any publication did something like that they would be widely and loudly denounced and rightly so. |
I don't think Hassan is trying to compare the seriousness of these things. It's not about equivalencies. With respect, I think you've missed the point a bit. |  |
| |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:39 - Jan 14 with 2095 views | LeonisGod |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:25 - Jan 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Interesting piece and I agree with a lot of it, particularly around the limit to free speech and also to some extent the 'bandwagon' like quality of some of the Je Suis Charlie campaign (including, rather disgracefully, the application this week to trademark the slogan).
Have to say though that I believe Mehdi's examples of equivalence in other religions to be seriously flawed. A cartoon of Muhammed is not comparable to a cartoon of the holocaust - it is equivalent to a cartoon of God. Similarly a cartoon of victims of 9/11 is not equivalent - the equivalence there would be Jesus. It is my understanding from what I have seen this week that the title in question has published cartoons on all religions.
He is right in that people get offended all of the time. The reality is though that the offence that a Moslem may feel over a cartoon of Muhammed is no more real or worthy of consideration than the offence that a Christian may have over 'Life of Brian' or 'Jesus Christ Superstar' or anything else. There's not a particular right to never be questioned or teased or mocked for that matter that comes with one religion over any other.
If he is seriously comparing the publication of a cartoon depicting Muhammed with cartoons that would depict a holocaust victim or victims of 9/11 he needs to take a look at himself. A cartoon that depicted the Moslem victims of the recent school attack would be the equivalent, and if any publication did something like that they would be widely and loudly denounced and rightly so. |
I partly agree. It's a perverse and slightly contradictory piece, backed up with wildly inaccurate parallels that attempts to portray Muslims as unfairly prejudiced. As you say the parallels between the figurehead of a religion and acts of violence are laughable. Only tempered slightly by the fact that according to their respective faiths, there is no issue with portraying the image of Christ yet there is with Mohammed. But to compare to the Holocaust or similar is ludicrous (from my world viewpoint of course).
But, you only have to google Charlie Hebdo covers to see that they take the pee out of anyone and everyone. Satire of all forms has been prevalent for donkeys years and we're better off for it imo. Although it raises an interesting point about where the limits are for self censorship, and how these may vary in different societies, and then how they change as societies change in their composition..... |  | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:43 - Jan 14 with 2092 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:34 - Jan 14 by union_jack |
I agree with the comparisons you make but a Muslim does get offended at caricatures of Mohammed.
Is it right that we should judge what is offensive and what is not? The fact is that Charlie Hebdo knew what they were doing but continued to 'poke the lion'. See my post above for my thoughts on that. |
yes they do, but so do some Christians get genuinely offended by the relatively routine mocking of them as well. I just don't think one has any more rights than the other.
As I said in my reply to Safe Jack, I would hope that offence isn't deliberately caused of gratuitous, but equally i don't believe that a Moslem loves his God or Muhammed anymore than a Christian loves theirs. You made the point about loving Muhammed more than family - I would argues that the same could be said over a Jehovah's Witness who refuses their child a blood transfusion. | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:54 - Jan 14 with 2081 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:36 - Jan 14 by exiledclaseboy |
I don't think Hassan is trying to compare the seriousness of these things. It's not about equivalencies. With respect, I think you've missed the point a bit. |
I thought he was making a point about equivalence - partly I read that by him saying
"Muslims, I guess, are expected to have thicker skins than their Christian and Jewish brethren" after comparing the cartoon of Muhammed with the other examples he gives.
I may be reading it wrongly though of course.
I am not religious, but I respect everyone's own religious choices. However, that means 'respect' rather than 'abide by their rules' whatever those rules may be. So. for example, I totally respect a Moslem woman's right to cover her head. But the fact that a Moslem may find it offensive that I don't cover mine, in my mind goes into the category of 'tough sh*t'. | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 18:31 - Jan 14 with 2041 views | veritas |
This is a culture clash.
I'm a Christian but I'm very happy for people to insult my faith if that's what they want to do. In fact I find much of the humour very funny.
Jews constantly make jokes about themselves being greedy etc.
Muslims on the other hand have a complete sense of humour bypass. I personally don't think we should in any way shape or form change our ways to 'accommodate'
As that Mayor said - if you don't like it 'f@@jk off' | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 18:41 - Jan 14 with 2036 views | VetchitBack |
We've now got Mehdi "non-Muslims are akin to cattle" Hasan with helpful advice on what the West is doing wrong!?
Interesting that The Guardian and BBC still employ him after making such comments. |  |
| The orthodox are always orthodox, regardless of the orthodoxy.
|
| |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 18:44 - Jan 14 with 2028 views | veritas |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 18:41 - Jan 14 by VetchitBack |
We've now got Mehdi "non-Muslims are akin to cattle" Hasan with helpful advice on what the West is doing wrong!?
Interesting that The Guardian and BBC still employ him after making such comments. |
It disgusts me, his comments were despicable. | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 18:46 - Jan 14 with 2027 views | LeonisGod |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 18:41 - Jan 14 by VetchitBack |
We've now got Mehdi "non-Muslims are akin to cattle" Hasan with helpful advice on what the West is doing wrong!?
Interesting that The Guardian and BBC still employ him after making such comments. |
I'd sack him just for spouting pseudo-intellectual b0ll0x.  | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 19:06 - Jan 14 with 2014 views | veritas |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 22:01 - Jan 13 by longlostjack |
Would you also have preferred "the Life of Brian" not to have been shown ? |
Of course that's fine, Christians are fair game. | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 19:23 - Jan 14 with 1999 views | jacksfullaces |
why is it inappropriate to take the piss out of someone's religion as opposed to the football team they support? for what reason is it not fair game? why is it more offensive to criticise someone's religious belief than their choice of football team? what if their football team gives them a purpose or meaning to life? just wondering. | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 21:30 - Jan 14 with 1966 views | safe_jack |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 16:51 - Jan 14 by union_jack |
A fair point but not many offended people go out on a mass rampage killing innocent people.
Let's not be taken in by these people. They are not Muslims carrying out the messages of the Quran or so I am led to believe. They have used this as a vehicle to carry out heinous crimes with some sort of 'justification'. If it wasn't Islam, it would be something else.
I am sure this is similar in the way so called ordinary Germans were given licence to kill Jews (and others) with apparent impunity. There were plenty of people who stepped forward.
Just a bunch of blood thirsty murderers who look for support from an expanding terrorist group. |
Of course they don't, I wasn't talking about the Charlie Hebdo attackers but instead of the Muslim community in general. As you said so yourself, the religion is seen as a 'justification' to the terrorists' actions. | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 21:44 - Jan 14 with 1957 views | safe_jack |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 17:43 - Jan 14 by londonlisa2001 |
yes they do, but so do some Christians get genuinely offended by the relatively routine mocking of them as well. I just don't think one has any more rights than the other.
As I said in my reply to Safe Jack, I would hope that offence isn't deliberately caused of gratuitous, but equally i don't believe that a Moslem loves his God or Muhammed anymore than a Christian loves theirs. You made the point about loving Muhammed more than family - I would argues that the same could be said over a Jehovah's Witness who refuses their child a blood transfusion. |
As I said before, I don't think it's about who loves their god more but more to do with upbringing and culture.
You have to remember that people in Europe were brought up in a secular surrounding, a godless society. Whereas the majority of Muslim countries are highly religious with the only thing that remains constant and brings stability is their faith/god.
As an example, think of the most powerful/stable Arab nations at the moment, one thing they have in common is their strict religious code of governance. The people have not been exposed to the mocking of faith as we have. | | | |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 23:42 - Jan 14 with 1914 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Charles Hebdo Latest Edition on 21:44 - Jan 14 by safe_jack |
As I said before, I don't think it's about who loves their god more but more to do with upbringing and culture.
You have to remember that people in Europe were brought up in a secular surrounding, a godless society. Whereas the majority of Muslim countries are highly religious with the only thing that remains constant and brings stability is their faith/god.
As an example, think of the most powerful/stable Arab nations at the moment, one thing they have in common is their strict religious code of governance. The people have not been exposed to the mocking of faith as we have. |
The majority of people claiming offence have been brought up in exactly the same secular European countries as the rest of us.
A lot of Moslems claiming offence are 2nd or 3rd generation British. They may have grown up in a family environment where religion is important but to be frank, so did most of us once we look back to our grandparents' generation.
And also, some of those that are claiming to be grossly offended, such is the importance of Islam to them, are to be found, particularly when younger, drinking and partying while hiding it from their families.
The other thing that the most powerful / stable Arab nations have in common of course is the complete absence of any type of freedom of speech or expression, absolutely horrific punishment of those that even slightly step out of line, and the persecution of other religions, women, homosexuals and so on. It is inconceivable that those of a different religion or cultural background would be allowed even a small fraction of the freedom of expression that Moslems enjoy in Europe in those states.
By the way, I am not religious myself, but I still find your categorisation of Europe as a 'godless society' offensive. However, I recognise your right to say it. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
