Is Islam Responsible for the Charlie Hebdo Murders?

[Looncall]

Islam is no more responsible for the Charlie Hebdo murders than Christianity is responsible for Westboro Baptist Church.

If they are able to justify their vile behaviours by referring to their "holy" texts (as both are), then their religions are at least partly to blame.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If they are able to justify their vile behaviours by referring to their "holy" texts (as both are), then their religions are at least partly to blame.

Further, if their actions were motivated by a point of view inculcated into them by that religion (e.g. Mohammed is a peerless man, a role model for all time and he is utterly holy) then the religion is entirely to blame.

 

[Duraza]

CH is a radical left wing anti-racist publication. They used racist caricatures to criticize the policies of the French right wing, every bit as satirical as South Park and probably more so.

So, I think there is an important distinction to be made here about racism. Racism is not strictly about intention or overtness. Just because I do not intend to be racist, that doesn't make my actions any less racist. I understand that CH is left wing and all for the ideals of liberalism, etc. I understand they make fun of everyone, the same way that South Park does, part of the reason I made that comparison to begin with. And still, I acknowledge that CH was unintentionally racist.

Their portrayals of Muslims adhered to misinformed stereotypes that are often applied to depictions of persons of Arabic descent in order to stress their ugliness, foreignness, and "otherness." They also promote an incorrect view that presumed Arabic features = Muslim when Muslims come from far more regions than the Middle East.

I fully understand the constraints of artistic style and getting a point across to the viewer and perhaps you are willing to dismiss what I perceive as an insensitive depiction of stereotypical/racist features as artistic choice. I welcome the critique that I'm reading far too deeply into these pictures. Just recognize that the reverse, that you're is too shallow, is just as valid and backed up by a history that has seen second class citizens portrayed in racist ways, intentionally and unintentionally.

 

[gsa]

So, I think there is an important distinction to be made here about racism. Racism is not strictly about intention or overtness. Just because I do not intend to be racist, that doesn't make my actions any less racist. I understand that CH is left wing and all for the ideals of liberalism, etc. I understand they make fun of everyone, the same way that South Park does, part of the reason I made that comparison to begin with. And still, I acknowledge that CH was unintentionally racist.

Their portrayals of Muslims adhered to misinformed stereotypes that are often applied to depictions of persons of Arabic descent in order to stress their ugliness, foreignness, and "otherness." They also promote an incorrect view that presumed Arabic features = Muslim when Muslims come from far more regions than the Middle East.

I fully understand the constraints of artistic style and getting a point across to the viewer and perhaps you are willing to dismiss what I perceive as an insensitive depiction of stereotypical/racist features as artistic choice. I welcome the critique that I'm reading far too deeply into these pictures. Just recognize that the reverse, that you're is too shallow, is just as valid and backed up by a history that has seen second class citizens portrayed in racist ways, intentionally and unintentionally.

First, I don't accept that racism can be unintentional in the way that I think you are describing. But a bigger problem is that you are ignoring the actual FRENCH context of the cartoons. What seems racist in one culture is not necessarily racist in another culture. Also, of course, Islam is not a race or ethnicity, so you have to make some attempt to understand that there is a rational difference between parody of Islam (and Muslims) and parody of Arabs.

I do not accept that my analysis is shallow. I'm a bit of a Francophile and I'm familiar with the French issues with race and religion. I think that your perception is off, particularly in light of the actual intent of CH and its left wing (not liberal, in the Euro context) positions.

 

[Duraza]

First, I don't accept that racism can be unintentional in the way that I think you are describing. But a bigger problem is that you are ignoring the actual FRENCH context of the cartoons. What seems racist in one culture is not necessarily racist in another culture. Also, of course, Islam is not a race or ethnicity, so you have to make some attempt to understand that there is a rational difference between parody of Islam (and Muslims) and parody of Arabs.

I do not accept that my analysis is shallow. I'm a bit of a Francophile and I'm familiar with the French issues with race and religion. I think that your perception is off, particularly in light of the actual intent of CH and its left wing (not liberal, in the Euro context) positions.

Fair enough. After reading that article it's clear that you're definitely right that my perception of what CH is doing is out of context. I'll concede there. (I do disagree with the more general point about intentionality in racism but that's off topic and I can accept that CH in context isn't doing exactly what I've been shown that it's doing.) I recognize the difference between Islam and Arabs and was trying to call attention to the fact that the two are often conflated, but again that may be because of how often the two are conflated in the U.S. so perhaps you're right and my perception of CH is off or unfairly colored.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend if I did. It's just really hard to ignore how much their cartoons remind me of racist cartoons I've seen (and I understand they are purposefully parody but... the things people try to get away with in the name of "parody," "satire," and "commentary" makes me inherently distrustful). The entire thing just rubs me the wrong way and perhaps in a French context they make a lot of sense like you're saying. But outside of that they look like flagrant racism and I find it easy to understand why people were pissed (no, I'm not talking about the terrorists here, just other people who were pissed before the attack).

 

[Flankerl]

Their portrayals of Muslims adhered to misinformed stereotypes that are often applied to depictions of persons of Arabic descent in order to stress their ugliness, foreignness, and "otherness."

In reality CH draws all characters in the same comic just the same way.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't disagree. You are right to say that no matter how gross the view is, people should be able to speak it without fear of violence. And then we as a society should be able to talk about how gross that view is. In a perfect world everyone would have been against Charlie Hebdo's racist cartoons, no violence would have ever occurred, and they would have cleaned up their act. And it is a terrible crime that instead the cartoonists were killed while expressing free speech.

However, getting rid of those who would use violence won't create the world you're hoping for. Because the right to free speech exists on a spectrum. Yes, I as a person can say whatever I want to say. Anyone can. But persons together as organizations cannot do such a thing. The KKK since their inception have been allowed to preach White Supremacy without consequence (a few jailings, but once they stopped lynching they could do whatever). The Black Panthers preaching Black Supremacy even before the violence were a target of the ruling structure and shut down. Guess what they did? Turn to violence to have their free speech heard. The Black Stone Rangers were another political party that eventually became the infamous Blackstone gang of Chicago's southside because their free speech was continually stepped on.

I'm not intentionally trying to change the subject away from violence in Islam. There is violence in Islam. A lot of it. But I'm asking you what the precursor to that violence is. I don't think Islam is any more inherently violent than any other religion. That inherent violence is a problem I'm not addressing. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. However, my bets are on a lot of the violence we see today being the result of a world where not everyone has an equal right to free speech. And it is at least just as important we fix that as it is we deal with violence in religion.

Also: As I side note, I prefer South Park. Those guys make fun of every religion and do it with so much style. I know CH makes fun of everyone too, but as far as good satire goes SP >>> CH.

I'm confused. Are you implying that Muslims do not have the right to express themselves as much as other groups?

 

[Duraza]

I'm confused. Are you implying that Muslims do not have the right to express themselves as much as other groups?

Kind of. Not necessarily that they don't have the right but that often times that right is dampened or distorted. That's why I brought up the Danish newspaper in my other post as an example. A muslim's right to nonviolent protest is equivalent to a cartoonist's right to draw what he/she likes. Both are covered in free speech. However, in the Danish example the media and public responded by saying that muslim protests were actually threats to free speech. That sort of rhetoric was used to make what was a legitimate exercise of free speech illegitimate.

That's why I call them "2nd class citizens." The same way that Blacks and Latinos often argue they are "2nd class citizens" in the U.S.

Ultimately, to circle back to the question about whether Islam is responsible, I think the question should really be: Structuralism or culturalism? I tend to argue that there is a structural issue and that radical Islam is reactionary (though they themselves likely don't recognize the structural issue they are reacting to). To say that Islam is at fault for the violence is a culturalist argument, believing that the forces of personal autonomy/choice/agency are at greater fault.

I honestly think that the two somehow fit together, but that doesn't change that we tend to lean more heavily in one direction or another.

 

[leibowde84]

Kind of. Not necessarily that they don't have the right but that often times that right is dampened or distorted. That's why I brought up the Danish newspaper in my other post as an example. A muslim's right to nonviolent protest is equivalent to a cartoonist's right to draw what he/she likes. Both are covered in free speech. However, in the Danish example the media and public responded by saying that muslim protests were actually threats to free speech. That sort of rhetoric was used to make what was a legitimate exercise of free speech illegitimate.

That's why I call them "2nd class citizens." The same way that Blacks and Latinos often argue they are "2nd class citizens" in the U.S.

Ultimately, to circle back to the question about whether Islam is responsible, I think the question should really be: Structuralism or culturalism? I tend to argue that there is a structural issue and that radical Islam is reactionary (though they themselves likely don't recognize the structural issue they are reacting to). To say that Islam is at fault for the violence is a culturalist argument, believing that the forces of personal autonomy/choice/agency are at greater fault.

I honestly think that the two somehow fit together, but that doesn't change that we tend to lean more heavily in one direction or another.

I think that is a valid point. But, to be honest, they were protesting free speech, while CH was protesting the atrocities done in the name of Islam. I for one would have had no issue with protests against CH in general. But, when Blasphemy Laws were brought up, I saw who the real enemy of free-speech was. No one has a right to be free from being offended ... not even God or Muhammad.

Nobody is arguing that the cartoons were "fair" or "decent." But, Muslims have to live with things like this just like the rest of us. And CH hates organized religions. How else were they supposed to insult Islam, if that was what they wanted to express?

 

[Duraza]

Oh yeah, agreed. The right to blaspheme is legitimate and I would never argue to take it away or restrict it. And no one has the right to go through life without insult, I don't disagree there.

I do think that the #JeSuisAhmed is a good example of the fact that many Muslims agree too. I hate to make a "Not All Muslims" sort of argument but I think that's the point. Many do want to show that they are capable of disliking CH, shaming the terrorist attacks on CH, and being apart of society without an issue. Then the question becomes: Is fanaticism fringe or is it mainstream for Islam?

I say, does it matter? Islam is one of the largest religions on the planet. It's not just going to disappear. The best way to work against fanaticism is to start elevating the voices of Muslims who are willing to speak out against it and still hold true to their own beliefs. That shows those who are extremists that perhaps there is another path. But antagonizing all Muslims by asking "is Islam inherently violent," or "does Islam need a reformation," which is something American media at least does often, isn't a useful use of our time in my opinion.

 

[leibowde84]

Oh yeah, agreed. The right to blaspheme is legitimate and I would never argue to take it away or restrict it. And no one has the right to go through life without insult, I don't disagree there.

I do think that the #JeSuisAhmed is a good example of the fact that many Muslims agree too. I hate to make a "Not All Muslims" sort of argument but I think that's the point. Many do want to show that they are capable of disliking CH, shaming the terrorist attacks on CH, and being apart of society without an issue. Then the question becomes: Is fanaticism fringe or is it mainstream for Islam?

I say, does it matter? Islam is one of the largest religions on the planet. It's not just going to disappear. The best way to work against fanaticism is to start elevating the voices of Muslims who are willing to speak out against it and still hold true to their own beliefs. That shows those who are extremists that perhaps there is another path. But antagonizing all Muslims by asking "is Islam inherently violent," or "does Islam need a reformation," which is something American media at least does often, isn't a useful use of our time in my opinion.

Fair enough. I agree with this.

 

[Shad]

Islamic theology express slander and mocking of Mo is punishable by death. Hence Islam is responsible.

 

[Duraza]

Islamic theology express slander and mocking of Mo is punishable by death. Hence Islam is responsible.

This is an argument that decides to take the text out of context. Yes, slander was punishable by death in the context of ancient Islamic society that was dealing with entirely different issues than Islamic society must deal with today. There is always a need to place a text in the context of modern society to decide what about it is applicable and what no longer works as apart of the modern system.

So many societies in the world operate on the laws, ethics, and codes set forth by ancient predecessors, and the goal should -always- be to think about the context in which our predecessors wrote the document and how it differs from today's society. What still works? What needs to be reinterpreted due to the demands of global society? Governments do this constantly. The American Constitution is constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted; that's the job of the Supreme Court. Deciding constitutionality requires a reading of the Constitution influenced by today's cultural norms.

Christianity too has constantly reinterpreted its documents, as have other religions. Why is Islamic theology is somehow different? The answer is it's not. People want to say it's different because they have a bias towards Islam. End of story.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This is an argument that decides to take the text out of context. Yes, slander was punishable by death in the context of ancient Islamic society that was dealing with entirely different issues than Islamic society must deal with today. There is always a need to place a text in the context of modern society to decide what about it is applicable and what no longer works as apart of the modern system.

So many societies in the world operate on the laws, ethics, and codes set forth by ancient predecessors, and the goal should -always- be to think about the context in which our predecessors wrote the document and how it differs from today's society. What still works? What needs to be reinterpreted due to the demands of global society? Governments do this constantly. The American Constitution is constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted; that's the job of the Supreme Court. Deciding constitutionality requires a reading of the Constitution influenced by today's cultural norms.

Christianity too has constantly reinterpreted its documents, as have other religions. Why is Islamic theology is somehow different? The answer is it's not. People want to say it's different because they have a bias towards Islam. End of story.

I think that Christians who murder in the name of god are also a stain on Christianity and Christianity does have its play in the matter. The fact however remains that Islam, as much as people wish to say that it is all loving and all peaceful, has verses, that we have already discussed, that have been interpreted to mean they have the right to harm others based upon certain offenses. If Muahmmad was a perfect man then why was the law he laid down any less relevant today than it was 1,400 years ago?

You see...if there weren't massive amounts of killing and terrorism done in the name of Islam then I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is that it does exist. They believe their interpretation of Islam is correct. It isn't simply a bias against Christianit or Islam. It is simply fact that right now there are any number of Islamic terrorist organizations fighting tooth and nail to reach their bloody goals. In the past Christianity has had terrible things and that is part of the reason why I don't like it. I have huge problems with Christianity and its influence in the modern world today in the west. However it isn't the mass killing of individuals or terrorism. My problems with them is their continual legislation against homosexuals and constant attempts to undermine science. In the Islamic world I am against them killing homosexuals.

 

[Looncall]

This is an argument that decides to take the text out of context. Yes, slander was punishable by death in the context of ancient Islamic society that was dealing with entirely different issues than Islamic society must deal with today. There is always a need to place a text in the context of modern society to decide what about it is applicable and what no longer works as apart of the modern system.

So many societies in the world operate on the laws, ethics, and codes set forth by ancient predecessors, and the goal should -always- be to think about the context in which our predecessors wrote the document and how it differs from today's society. What still works? What needs to be reinterpreted due to the demands of global society? Governments do this constantly. The American Constitution is constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted; that's the job of the Supreme Court. Deciding constitutionality requires a reading of the Constitution influenced by today's cultural norms.

Christianity too has constantly reinterpreted its documents, as have other religions. Why is Islamic theology is somehow different? The answer is it's not. People want to say it's different because they have a bias towards Islam. End of story.

Muslims continually tell that islam is immutable. I am inclined to take them at their word.

 

[gsa]

Oh yeah, agreed. The right to blaspheme is legitimate and I would never argue to take it away or restrict it. And no one has the right to go through life without insult, I don't disagree there.

I do think that the #JeSuisAhmed is a good example of the fact that many Muslims agree too. I hate to make a "Not All Muslims" sort of argument but I think that's the point. Many do want to show that they are capable of disliking CH, shaming the terrorist attacks on CH, and being apart of society without an issue. Then the question becomes: Is fanaticism fringe or is it mainstream for Islam?

I say, does it matter? Islam is one of the largest religions on the planet. It's not just going to disappear. The best way to work against fanaticism is to start elevating the voices of Muslims who are willing to speak out against it and still hold true to their own beliefs. That shows those who are extremists that perhaps there is another path. But antagonizing all Muslims by asking "is Islam inherently violent," or "does Islam need a reformation," which is something American media at least does often, isn't a useful use of our time in my opinion.

Muslims can oppose the actions of terrorists taking the law into their own hands while still supporting the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy. I think that we need to acknowledge that support for the Brotherhood, for example, is a problem. It may not be as much of a problem as support for ISIS or other extremist groups that advocate vigilante violence, but it also isn't acceptable or compatible with, for example, the universal declaration of human rights.

I also don't think that we should infantilize Muslims. My problem with this "root cause" analysis is that it does so. It says to Muslims who advocate violence, you are not responsible for your choices, US foreign policy is. Foreign papers publishing cartoons are responsible. Jews are responsible. Gay activists are responsible. Feminists are responsible. Atheists are responsible. Everyone bears responsibility except the Muslims who inflict violence on one another and those outside the fold of their faith. And that is simply incorrect. The perpetrators are responsible, and their apologists are responsible for making disingenuous arguments to the contrary.

For me, the question is not "Is Islam inherently violent," because no religion is inherently anything given that it can change. But that is not the real problem: The real problem is that much of Islam, indeed much of the mainstream of Islam, is currently violent, and currently intolerant, and that needs to be reformed.

This is an argument that decides to take the text out of context. Yes, slander was punishable by death in the context of ancient Islamic society that was dealing with entirely different issues than Islamic society must deal with today. There is always a need to place a text in the context of modern society to decide what about it is applicable and what no longer works as apart of the modern system.

So many societies in the world operate on the laws, ethics, and codes set forth by ancient predecessors, and the goal should -always- be to think about the context in which our predecessors wrote the document and how it differs from today's society. What still works? What needs to be reinterpreted due to the demands of global society? Governments do this constantly. The American Constitution is constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted; that's the job of the Supreme Court. Deciding constitutionality requires a reading of the Constitution influenced by today's cultural norms.

Christianity too has constantly reinterpreted its documents, as have other religions. Why is Islamic theology is somehow different? The answer is it's not. People want to say it's different because they have a bias towards Islam. End of story.

While it is true that religions can be reinterpreted, and while I agree that Islam is not an exception (and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the religion's most public and outspoken critics, agrees on this point), people are not simply saying that Islam is inherently different because they have a bias against the religion. They are saying it is inherently different because, right now, it is. Can that change? Yes, but the change will not come from the self-described "moderates" of Islam. To promote change, we have to encourage Islamic dissidents.

 

[Duraza]

In the past White men in America thought it perfectly legitimate to enslave Blacks, punish them by the whip, and lynch them if need be in order to ensure their servitude. However, if a Black man today were to say "I dislike Whites because of their history of violence towards my people" he would undoubtedly be shut down. The Founding Fathers of my nation held Black slaves and today historians think many of them weren't even truly Christian but "enlightened men." But even skepticism (not sure we could call them true atheists) did not stop them from thinking that all men were not created equal.

In the past Darwin's cousin, a scientist known as Francis Galton, used only his thoughts about science and heredity to create one of the most dangerous philosophies that has found its way into multiple human horrors and tragedies but we don't sit around saying that genetics is flawed, only that Galton's thinking was flawed and fringe. Even though James Watson, one of the most famous geneticists still alive openly preaches that certain races are smarter than others we have stripped him of influence rather than claim he speaks for all genetics.

Throughout the 20th century the medical world developed into the behemoth of advanced technology it is today. It also committed some of the most inhumane research we've ever seen. From proposing that the propensity to be a criminal is tied to heredity and so forcefully taking blood from children they suspected might become criminals to test their theories to the terrible Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, which effected hundreds of Black men when effective treatment was available.

The idea that Islam is particularly susceptible to being used for evil or that religion is particularly responsible for the majority of wrongdoing in the world is a fallacy. Immorality can come from anywhere and takes different forms. As a person in grad school for Bioethics, a field specifically created to fight against immorality and unethical actions coming from science, I can tell you it's been a lot more than just making sure animals are treated humanely in experiments. I can also tell that while Science isn't killing people anymore, it continues to perpetuate injustice in its own way, but that's off topic (perhaps I'll create another topic for that later).

Now, feel free to tell me "None of those examples are Science, Duraza. Those are people misusing science or the name of proper science." And I'll say in response "Terrorism is the misuse of Islam." And trust me, I'm not arguing this because I'm a Muslim or I think Science and religion are equivalent. That's not at all my bias, I just feel that there isn't sound logical basis for saying one but not the other.

For me, the question is not "Is Islam inherently violent," because no religion is inherently anything given that it can change. But that is not the real problem: The real problem is that much of Islam, indeed much of the mainstream of Islam, is currently violent, and currently intolerant, and that needs to be reformed.

All that said, I do agree with this. I have no problem with agreeing that Islam is an issue because today Islam is one of the largest reasons for violence. I'm not arguing against you at all on this point. These comments are only aimed at dissuading others from thinking that there is something particular to Islam.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Kudos to all. That was a fruitful, nuanced and; above all; civilised debate. Thank you.

 

[Izdaari]

I voted "Other (Explain".

Islam as a whole is not responsible for it, but those extremist factions that are stuck in the 7th century AD are. Just as Christianity as a whole is not responsible for "God Hates ****" protests, but the Westboro Baptist Church is, a small extremist faction. But unfortunately, the extremist faction in Islam is not so small. Islam is in dire need of a Reformation. That said, I am fully supportive of progressive, tolerant, peaceful Muslims.

 

[gsa]

I voted "Other (Explain".

Islam as a whole is not responsible for it, but those extremist factions that are stuck in the 7th century AD are. Just as Christianity as a whole is not responsible for "God Hates ****" protests, but the Westboro Baptist Church is, a small extremist faction. But unfortunately, the extremist faction in Islam is not so small. Islam is in dire need of a Reformation. That said, I am fully supportive of progressive, tolerant, peaceful Muslims.

Yes, it does often seem to come down to the highlighted point: Extremism within Islam is not as small as it is within Christianity (although given where Christianity is expanding and declining that may change back to historical norms more comparable to modern Islam).

Increasingly though I think that calling for an Islamic "reformation" is not the appropriate language and rather like the suggestion made by some other users here, that Islamic regions and cultures and the like are simply in need of enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation, after all, gave us extremists who wanted to purify the faith by purging it of heretical elements, both within Protestantism and the Counter-Reformation, not so far a cry from the Sunni extremists calling for sectarianism and jihad.