Is Islam Responsible for the Charlie Hebdo Murders?

[Jumi]

The question that intellectual minds should ask is what was CH intent in drawing those disgusting cartoons?

Same thing they were doing to pretty much everyone. Making satire.

 

[leibowde84]

Note in Islamic law any disgusting or offensive insult to any of the Prophets is an act of blasphemy.We,In Islam,respect and regard Mary and Jesus(PBBUT) in very high esteem.Now If any of them would have been insulted in disgusting cartoons then the Muslims would have reacted in the same way as that of our Prophet Muhammad(PBBUH).
Note CH were warned,not once nor twice but many times,but their refusal in retracting their disgusting behaviour caused their own deaths.In religion you have to be very careful so far as crossing the red line.CH crossed it and paid a small price.
If you examine the cause then you understand the effect.
The question that intellectual minds should ask is what was CH intent in drawing those disgusting cartoons?

The intent of any satirical paper is to sell copies. They were certainly successful, as they've sold more than ever in recent months.

Note in Islamic law any disgusting or offensive insult to any of the Prophets is an act of blasphemy.We,In Islam,respect and regard Mary and Jesus(PBBUT) in very high esteem.Now If any of them would have been insulted in disgusting cartoons then the Muslims would have reacted in the same way as that of our Prophet Muhammad(PBBUH).
Note CH were warned,not once nor twice but many times,but their refusal in retracting their disgusting behaviour caused their own deaths.In religion you have to be very careful so far as crossing the red line.CH crossed it and paid a small price.
If you examine the cause then you understand the effect.
The question that intellectual minds should ask is what was CH intent in drawing those disgusting cartoons?

Threatening violence over blasphemy is pretty darn immoral too. CH refused to "bend over" to terrorists threatening their lives. I think that takes courage. While I do not support the cartoons themselves, I think the fact that violence/rioting is seen as valid reaction is much much worse. Publications of this sort are a part of living in a diverse world. It is not going to go away through threats of violence.

Do you actually think that a drawing can reasonably be justification for violence/rioting?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Daesh/ISIS is the reason for CH murders. That's also why they attacked the grocery store.

Have you any evidence that Daesh/ISIS was involved?
Yes that grocery store killing on innocent just does not tie up.

Same thing they were doing to pretty much everyone. Making satire.

Well what is all the fuss about on this thread?
They paid a small price for their mischievous satire on religion.

 

[leibowde84]

Have you any evidence that Daesh/ISIS was involved?
Yes that grocery store killing on innocent just does not tie up.



Well what is all the fuss about on this thread?
They paid a small price for their mischievous satire on religion.

What is more of a price than the taking of one's life? Being killed is paying the ultimate price ... and for a satirical piece, it is disgusting. Religion is not off-limits, and never will be. It is up to adults to not overreact with violence.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think that it was wrong for Charlie Hebdo to have offended Muhammad who is very widely revered as a great prophet by millions of Muslims. Perhaps, Charlie Hebdo had crossed the line between freedom of speech and hate speech. The religious satire magazine had received many advanced warnings of dire consequences from some Muslims who had warned the magazine publishers that they would come under attack if they published cartoons which mocked Muhammad or Islam. The religious satire magazine should have expected that it would have come under attack by some outraged Muslims who would be deeply offended by satirical images of Muhammad or Islam. I think the Charlie Hebdo incident is a lesson for everybody that nobody should mock or make fun of the very powerful religion of Islam or its great prophet Muhammad (PBUH). I believe that Western civilization and the Islamic world should allow one another to live and let live in peace.

With all due respect, NO. You're essentially serving as an apologist for killing people based on a difference of opinion.

I can completely understand that in strict Islamic cultures, any image of Allah or Mohammed is outlawed. And you know what, that's fine. But the entirety of the world doesn't live by those standards and that one facet of Muslim belief hold no jurisdiction over the rest of humanity. There was a time, in certain Christian circles, where any image of the supernatural was considered taboo and they were collected and burned; graven images, as you might call them. But, again, the vast majority of humanity doesn't live by those rules. It is well within the right of any member of a free society to produce and publish any image that they want. You, yourself, in your above post mentioned several times that CH is a religious satire magazine... What, by the very nature of it's title, would you expect a religious satire magazine to publish, Charlie Brown or Garfield cartoons?

Ask yourself this, as a member of modern society. Has there, or has there not, been great societal good done by the publishing of controversial art? I will readily admit that I am not an expert on the cultural histories of many places in the Muslim world but, in the West, we have used cartoons and political art to highlight certain maladies in our culture to help address and/or eliminate them. We have used this type of media to bring things to light and into the public consciousness so that it may be addressed. What would have happened, for instance, if there had been no cartoons in local periodicals during the time of slavery in the United States? Certainly you understand that these cartoons, depicting the vile treatment of human beings at the hands of slave owners, helped to create the public consciousness which lead to growing support for the abolition of slavery? The same scenario is true for countless other examples, all the way from WWII down to Marie Antoinette and the French Revolution. Political and religious cartoons are part of who we are. Now, what would have happened if we limited those cartoons because they probably offended a few people along the way?

Some of these cartoons, and some pieces of art, I don't particularly care for. I found the CH stuff to be quite tasteless, actually. But, so what? The only difference it had on my life is my quick mental acknowledgement that I don't need to read their stuff and then I moved on with my day. If they published pictures, or articles, for example about my family, or my neighbors, or my way of life, and I felt just utterly and justifiably angry at them, would I be within my rights to murder them for disliking me? Of course not. I could sue them for defamation of character. I could deal with those issues like a civilized and modern human being, not a savage. What would you opinion of me be, for example, if I had hired someone to kill the people writing magazine articles about me personally and posting cartoons of me in very unflattering situations, and my only response afterwards was; "Well, I told them they shouldn't do that and I threatened them before but they just kept doing it so I killed them. It should be a lesson to them about what happens when you mock or make fun of the very powerful person of me!"

Should I never tell you how I truly feel out of fear of hurting your feelings?
Am I supposed to refrain from having a strong dissenting opinion to you because you threaten to beat me up?
Is a radical religious satirical magazine supposed to refrain from posting their free and liberal opinion of a religion because they were threatened by a group of radicals?

Of course not.
I am allowed to make any statement about anything I want to because I am a member of a free society. I should not have to live in fear of being beheaded because you don't like my opinions. If you don't want to read what I write, for example, then don't read it... It's really that simple. If certain people are incredibly offended by a magazine full of images that they don't want to see, then why do they spend so much time looking at them and worrying about them? If you don't want to see images of naked women, for example, don't buy a Playboy. If you don't want to hear or see religious satire, don't buy a religious satire magazine...

What you're doing, as we've mentioned earlier in this conversation, is blaming the victim. If a woman who dresses scantily is raped, is she to blame for her rape just because she wanted to dress a certain way or is it the man's fault for having the self control on a spoiled child? Any psychologically healthy and mature individual would think it ludicrous to blame the female . So why would you blame the murder of the writers and editor of a satirical magazine on the deceased?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Have you any evidence that Daesh/ISIS was involved?
Yes that grocery store killing on innocent just does not tie up.



Well what is all the fuss about on this thread?
They paid a small price for their mischievous satire on religion.

You think differently from me. Am I justified in killing you based on that difference of opinion?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I think that it was wrong for Charlie Hebdo to have offended Muhammad who is very widely revered as a great prophet by millions of Muslims.

Why were they wrong? Should something be taboo simply because others consider it sacrosanct? To draw an analogy; should you be forbidden from eating fast food because other people around you are on a diet?

Perhaps, Charlie Hebdo had crossed the line between freedom of speech and hate speech.

There is no "perhaps" about it. They did not cross the line between freedom of speech and hate speech.

The religious satire magazine had received many advanced warnings of dire consequences from some Muslims who had warned the magazine publishers that they would come under attack if they published cartoons which mocked Muhammad or Islam.

So that makes the murders acceptable? Because they were warned what their actions would bring? If women are warned that 'dressing provocatively' could lead to rape would that make rape acceptable? So much victim-blaming BS in this post.

The religious satire magazine should have expected that it would have come under attack by some outraged Muslims who would be deeply offended by satirical images of Muhammad or Islam. I think the Charlie Hebdo incident is a lesson for everybody that nobody should mock or make fun of the very powerful religion of Islam or its great prophet Muhammad (PBUH). I believe that Western civilization and the Islamic world should allow one another to live and let live in peace.

Or in other words, surrender to threats of violence and allow terrorism to work? No. If Western civilisation does that we'll be doomed to languish in the new Dark Age forced on us by barbarians hell-bent on enforcing a 7th century religion with 21st century weapons technology. No thanks. You may think it's acceptable to allow terrorism and disproportionate violence to work but I'm glad to see there are people here who have sense.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

With all due respect, NO. You're essentially serving as an apologist for killing people based on a difference of opinion.

I can completely understand that in strict Islamic cultures, any image of Allah or Mohammed is outlawed. And you know what, that's fine. But the entirety of the world doesn't live by those standards and that one facet of Muslim belief hold no jurisdiction over the rest of humanity. There was a time, in certain Christian circles, where any image of the supernatural was considered taboo and they were collected and burned; graven images, as you might call them. But, again, the vast majority of humanity doesn't live by those rules. It is well within the right of any member of a free society to produce and publish any image that they want. You, yourself, in your above post mentioned several times that CH is a religious satire magazine... What, by the very nature of it's title, would you expect a religious satire magazine to publish, Charlie Brown or Garfield cartoons?

Ask yourself this, as a member of modern society. Has there, or has there not, been great societal good done by the publishing of controversial art? I will readily admit that I am not an expert on the cultural histories of many places in the Muslim world but, in the West, we have used cartoons and political art to highlight certain maladies in our culture to help address and/or eliminate them. We have used this type of media to bring things to light and into the public consciousness so that it may be addressed. What would have happened, for instance, if there had been no cartoons in local periodicals during the time of slavery in the United States? Certainly you understand that these cartoons, depicting the vile treatment of human beings at the hands of slave owners, helped to create the public consciousness which lead to growing support for the abolition of slavery? The same scenario is true for countless other examples, all the way from WWII down to Marie Antoinette and the French Revolution. Political and religious cartoons are part of who we are. Now, what would have happened if we limited those cartoons because they probably offended a few people along the way?

Some of these cartoons, and some pieces of art, I don't particularly care for. I found the CH stuff to be quite tasteless, actually. But, so what? The only difference it had on my life is my quick mental acknowledgement that I don't need to read their stuff and then I moved on with my day. If they published pictures, or articles, for example about my family, or my neighbors, or my way of life, and I felt just utterly and justifiably angry at them, would I be within my rights to murder them for disliking me? Of course not. I could sue them for defamation of character. I could deal with those issues like a civilized and modern human being, not a savage. What would you opinion of me be, for example, if I had hired someone to kill the people writing magazine articles about me personally and posting cartoons of me in very unflattering situations, and my only response afterwards was; "Well, I told them they shouldn't do that and I threatened them before but they just kept doing it so I killed them. It should be a lesson to them about what happens when you mock or make fun of the very powerful person of me!"

Should I never tell you how I truly feel out of fear of hurting your feelings?
Am I supposed to refrain from having a strong dissenting opinion to you because you threaten to beat me up?
Is a radical religious satirical magazine supposed to refrain from posting their free and liberal opinion of a religion because they were threatened by a group of radicals?

Of course not.
I am allowed to make any statement about anything I want to because I am a member of a free society. I should not have to live in fear of being beheaded because you don't like my opinions. If you don't want to read what I write, for example, then don't read it... It's really that simple. If certain people are incredibly offended by a magazine full of images that they don't want to see, then why do they spend so much time looking at them and worrying about them? If you don't want to see images of naked women, for example, don't buy a Playboy. If you don't want to hear or see religious satire, don't buy a religious satire magazine...

What you're doing, as we've mentioned earlier in this conversation, is blaming the victim. If a woman who dresses scantily is raped, is she to blame for her rape just because she wanted to dress a certain way or is it the man's fault for having the self control on a spoiled child? Any psychologically healthy and mature individual would think it ludicrous to blame the female . So why would you blame the murder of the writers and editor of a satirical magazine on the deceased?

The saddest part about your post is the fact I can only like it once. Well said, sir!

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Note in Islamic law any disgusting or offensive insult to any of the Prophets is an act of blasphemy.We,In Islam,respect and regard Mary and Jesus(PBBUT) in very high esteem.Now If any of them would have been insulted in disgusting cartoons then the Muslims would have reacted in the same way as that of our Prophet Muhammad(PBBUH).
Note CH were warned,not once nor twice but many times,but their refusal in retracting their disgusting behaviour caused their own deaths.In religion you have to be very careful so far as crossing the red line.CH crossed it and paid a small price.
If you examine the cause then you understand the effect.
The question that intellectual minds should ask is what was CH intent in drawing those disgusting cartoons?

No, brainwashed zealots who seem to think themselves above the laws of civilised peoples caused the deaths of the CH cartoonists by murdering them in cold blood. And for what? Drawing pictures. It's sickening that people actually believe what these murderers did was justified.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The saddest part about your post is the fact I can only like it once. Well said, sir!

It had to be addressed. It's an absolutely disgusting mentality and a perfect example of what's wrong with certain aspects of society.

 

[faroukfarouk]

The intent of any satirical paper is to sell copies. They were certainly successful, as they've sold more than ever in recent months.

Well they made a lot of money but they could not take it with them.
They deserved what they got for being insensitive.

Threatening violence over blasphemy is pretty darn immoral too.

It may be immoral to you but to me its moral.

CH refused to "bend over" to terrorists threatening their lives. I think that takes courage. While I do not support the cartoons themselves, I think the fact that violence/rioting is seen as valid reaction is much much worse. Publications of this sort are a part of living in a diverse world. It is not going to go away through threats of violence.

Their refusal in bending and their courage cost them lives.If these insensitive publications continue then expect more deaths.

Do you actually think that a drawing can reasonably be justification for violence/rioting?

Is there an alternative?

 

[faroukfarouk]

No, brainwashed zealots who seem to think themselves above the laws of civilised peoples caused the deaths of the CH cartoonists by murdering them in cold blood. And for what? Drawing pictures. It's sickening that people actually believe what these murderers did was justified.

If only you understand the meaning of the word "sensitive".
Further they were warned.Their arrogance led to their own deaths.
I justify it 100%.

 

[gsa]

I've struggled with all this a little of late. Well, struggled is probably the wrong word, but it has been on my thoughts.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm not an anti-theist, in any sense of the word. I confess, I do have a natural scepticism to any hypothesis that finds it useful to proscribe cause to a religion followed by 1.6 billion people, not out of political correctness, but more because my mind jumps to the next obvious question...So what does that mean? As I age, I have tended to leave behind some of my idealism (but only some) in favour of a harder pragmatism, and I suspect this plays into my evolving (or devolving?!) thought process.

I personally think identifying Islam as a root cause is unhelpful. The main chance we have to de-radicalise Islam are Muslims, and I don't think attacking Islam is an effective way of doing this. Instead, I think we should be focusing on specific behaviours. It is up to each Muslim (and indeed each human) to work out where they fit with those behaviours.

Freedom of religion (including the right to leave a religion and criticize a religion) is a simple example of a behaviour which I think is valuable. It's debateable, I suppose, to what degree various Muslims would subscribe to true freedom of religion, and perhaps I am splitting hairs by suggesting that I would be less likely to attack Islam, and more likely to attack a specific behaviour/belief that many Muslims hold to, but in my mind it's an important distinction.

Having said all that, obviously there are times that generalizations are used as an effective way of getting the main thrust of a message across. I certainly am not immune to that. But I think we need to work out exactly what it is we have an issue with and (more important, and often forgotten) what is the most effective means for reducing this sort of negative behaviour and belief.

No doubt some think rational anti-Islamic argument is the best way, but I think it's more effective in mobilising non-Muslims than Muslims. Given (as earlier stated) that I think moderate Muslims are key to eventually dismantling the extremist power-bases, I prefer more focused argument which allows Muslims to see clearly what it is we have a problem with.

Having said all that, I would prefer criticism of Islam to continue over such criticism being silenced. Vastly prefer. Any climate where criticism is quelled is simply unhealthy to my mind.

This is well thought out and deserves a careful and thorough response.

1. I do not know that there is any "root cause" to Islamist terrorism, because I think that most problems that are this complex have multiple causes. But I do think that one of those causes is Islamic fundamentalism. And Islam is a fundamentalist religion, much more so than Christianity or Judaism. The death penalty for adultery, apostasy and homosexuality is well within the mainstream of the religion.

2. This story has been told at least once before, in Europe. We did not get secularism by relying on moderate Christianity alone; we had deists, atheists and other rationalists working against religion simultaneously. We can see that is beginning to happen in Islamic countries.

3. I think that mobilizing non-Muslims is required as well. The existential threat to Western values (or civilization generally) is not from Islamic extremism, but from the reactions that it engenders among non-Muslims in Western democracies. By refusing to critique Islam from a liberal or left perspective, the only voices left become nationalist and xenophobic ones, which helps shape the response in the West. Look at what has happened in the Netherlands, for example.

 

[gsa]

If only you understand the meaning of the word "sensitive".
Further they were warned.Their arrogance led to their own deaths.
I justify it 100%.

And this is why the problem is not just ISIS or fringe elements. The problem lies at the heart of Islam. Only when we admit this to ourselves can we understand what it is we are dealing with.

 

[Cephus]

This is well thought out and deserves a careful and thorough response.

1. I do not know that there is any "root cause" to Islamist terrorism, because I think that most problems that are this complex have multiple causes. But I do think that one of those causes is Islamic fundamentalism. And Islam is a fundamentalist religion, much more so than Christianity or Judaism. The death penalty for adultery, apostasy and homosexuality is well within the mainstream of the religion.

Virtually all religions have the potential to be violent, Islam isn't more violent than any other religion, otherwise you would be seeing just as many violent Muslims in the west as you do in the Middle East. It isn't religion that typically keeps itself under control, it is secular society that keeps the religion from running wild. When they think they have half a chance to get away with murder, we see the religious taking it time and time again. It isn't the religion, it's the society that is to blame for letting the religion go crazy. Let's not forget that the Christians in Uganda wanted to impose the death penalty for homosexuality as well, you have Christian congressmen demanding that we put gays to death in California and historically, every single thing you try to attribute to Islam has been true of Christianity. Your run of the mill Muslim in the United States is no more violent than your run of the mill Christian. Secular society has neutered both religions.

2. This story has been told at least once before, in Europe. We did not get secularism by relying on moderate Christianity alone; we had deists, atheists and other rationalists working against religion simultaneously. We can see that is beginning to happen in Islamic countries.

You don't get to moderate Christianity without having a secular influence. You have to have people who realize that there are more important things in life than just religion and that is the genesis of secularism. The problem in many of these countries is that secularism simply doesn't exist to any meaningful degree. Yes, Muslims are fighting against ISIS, but only because they don't want to be slaughtered. They don't want to fight against Islam, they don't want to set Islam aside and have a secular society and a secular government. They just want to continue to be their own particular brand of Muslim, complete with their own particular religious justice system, which most people in the west would consider reprehensible. Honor killings, institutionalized rape, punishing rape victims, etc. are all very commonplace because the society permits it.

3. I think that mobilizing non-Muslims is required as well. The existential threat to Western values (or civilization generally) is not from Islamic extremism, but from the reactions that it engenders among non-Muslims in Western democracies. By refusing to critique Islam from a liberal or left perspective, the only voices left become nationalist and xenophobic ones, which helps shape the response in the West. Look at what has happened in the Netherlands, for example.

I think everyone needs to be involved. However, most Muslims in the West are entirely involved in Western societies, they are not violent, they are not going to kill anyone because they realize that there are things that are more important than their religion. The same is true of just about every religious person on the West. You get some radicals who act violently, but that's true across all religions and they are in the vast minority. We need to be serious about what's going on, that the problem is both Islam, but it's also these societies which allow Islam to run wild. I don't know how you can actually change either from without, you can bomb them, you can shoot them, but you can't change the way they think. That's the real fight.

 

[gsa]

Virtually all religions have the potential to be violent, Islam isn't more violent than any other religion, otherwise you would be seeing just as many violent Muslims in the west as you do in the Middle East. It isn't religion that typically keeps itself under control, it is secular society that keeps the religion from running wild. When they think they have half a chance to get away with murder, we see the religious taking it time and time again. It isn't the religion, it's the society that is to blame for letting the religion go crazy. Let's not forget that the Christians in Uganda wanted to impose the death penalty for homosexuality as well, you have Christian congressmen demanding that we put gays to death in California and historically, every single thing you try to attribute to Islam has been true of Christianity. Your run of the mill Muslim in the United States is no more violent than your run of the mill Christian. Secular society has neutered both religions.

I agree with that. But we have to deal with the religions as they exist today.

You don't get to moderate Christianity without having a secular influence. You have to have people who realize that there are more important things in life than just religion and that is the genesis of secularism. The problem in many of these countries is that secularism simply doesn't exist to any meaningful degree. Yes, Muslims are fighting against ISIS, but only because they don't want to be slaughtered. They don't want to fight against Islam, they don't want to set Islam aside and have a secular society and a secular government. They just want to continue to be their own particular brand of Muslim, complete with their own particular religious justice system, which most people in the west would consider reprehensible. Honor killings, institutionalized rape, punishing rape victims, etc. are all very commonplace because the society permits it.

There are secular dissidents though, and secularism can still be encouraged there.

I think everyone needs to be involved. However, most Muslims in the West are entirely involved in Western societies, they are not violent, they are not going to kill anyone because they realize that there are things that are more important than their religion. The same is true of just about every religious person on the West. You get some radicals who act violently, but that's true across all religions and they are in the vast minority. We need to be serious about what's going on, that the problem is both Islam, but it's also these societies which allow Islam to run wild. I don't know how you can actually change either from without, you can bomb them, you can shoot them, but you can't change the way they think. That's the real fight.

There is clearly a radicalization problem in Europe. In the US, not so much from what I can see, at least not as much of a problem. Of course it is a tiny minority who turn to extremism, but even a small percentage of a billion people can add up quickly.

 

[Jumi]

Have you any evidence that Daesh/ISIS was involved?

One of the killers on the run said the reason they killed people is French bombing his comrades. So they kill critics of that government. I think they just wanted to kill easy targets that don't make resistance.

Yes that grocery store killing on innocent just does not tie up.

Their message was that it's the same.

They paid a small price for their mischievous satire on religion.

We all die, they had been doing this for decades. They got killed only now, why? Smarter people would just have ignored them and not raise them up to be popular.

 

[Kenaz]

To the original question:
We are judging actions. Actions are taken by people, individuals. They may be influenced or inspired by beliefs or ideologies, but we must not hold those beliefs responsible, but the actions & the individual who did them. Each person is unique.

We cannot 'try' or exact 'justice' to a ideology, but we can with an individual.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If only you understand the meaning of the word "sensitive".
Further they were warned.Their arrogance led to their own deaths.
I justify it 100%.

Right. Because their killers were forced to act. They literally had no other choice but to shoot unarmed civilians dead. They couldn't, at any point, choose otherwise. It was literally impossible. [/sarcasm]

Your sick and immoral attitude is part of the problem, you barbarian.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If only you understand the meaning of the word "sensitive".
Further they were warned.Their arrogance led to their own deaths.
I justify it 100%.

I felt a great disturbance in the Force. As if a million irony meters suddenly cried out in terror... and were suddenly silenced.