Is Islam Responsible for the Charlie Hebdo Murders?

[Bodhitharta]

Sure.


Which is your assumption. You know nothing about me.


What??? I didn't blame the victims. I reject the violence by the perpetrator, not the violence acted upon the victim.

Where the heck did you get that idea from?


No. It's not understandable to you because you clearly got some crazy idea that I'm condescending the victims of violence when I'm rejecting the violence by the perpetrators. You're the one glorifying violence, not me. You're the one who condescend the victims by being glorifying violence for religions sake only.


If you're oppressed, then violence can most definitely be the only solution to get out of it. That would be violence that can be justified. But killing a cartoonist is not trying to get out of oppression. There's a miles difference between these things.

Nazis and racist have used cartoons and humor as a way to humiliate and oppress, the results have been horrendous but when there started to be consequences things started to change,today ostracism is a very effective tool but that us because the majority has made it so. I personally don't have the cultural leanings to want to kill over satire but that is only because I have grown up in a culture that even makes light of beastiality, abortion and all sorts of ungodly things.

 

[leibowde84]

News flash you are not God! Nor do you have any idea whatsoever what the point may be. You are most likely happy with all the creature comforts you have now, many of these things did not exist long ago and many people could not enjoy them after they became available, Fighting for rights is never bad

"Fighting for rights?" We are discussing killing people to defend God's honor. What rights are involved? Why does got need protection?

 

[gsa]

Nazis and racist have used cartoons and humor as a way to humiliate and oppress, the results have been horrendous but when there started to be consequences things started to change,today ostracism is a very effective tool but that us because the majority has made it so. I personally don't have the cultural leanings to want to kill over satire but that is only because I have grown up in a culture that even makes light of beastiality, abortion and all sorts of ungodly things.

Wanting to kill human beings who produce works of art is deviant and reprehensible, and people who believe it is appropriate have no place in a society that embraces the universal declaration of human rights. The Islamist repudiation of human rights is the problem, and that is what makes Islamism similar to Nazism. You're inverting the appropriate analogy.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The tendency to try and kill to defend the "honor of god" is in reality just a childish way of expressing their butthurt.

 

[Looncall]

Yes, the ultimate toddler temper tantrum.

 

[leibowde84]

The tendency to try and kill to defend the "honor of god" is in reality just a childish way of expressing their butthurt.

It is literally the same thing as a five year old hitting their sibling cuz they stole their toy.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It is literally the same thing as a five year old hitting their sibling cuz they stole their toy.

Yeah...except people die.

 

[leibowde84]

Yeah...except people die.

That was just a metaphore, but yeah. It would be like a sibling killing their sibling for stealing their toy. good point.

 

[Ouroboros]

That was just a metaphore, but yeah. It would be like a sibling killing their sibling for stealing theirony toy. good point.

Maybe that's the lesson from Cain and Abel. It's a story about religious jealousy. "God doesn't like you! He likes me more, and here's a big stick hitting your head to prove it!"

 

[Duraza]

While I would never agree with extremism or the actions of the terrorists who attacked and killed the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, I do think that French/European Islamophobia is more to the root of the problem than Islam is.

Charlie Hebdo is not the first time that the Islamic community has expressed outrage over the depictions not only of the prophet but more importantly themselves. I believe in the early 2000s there were some protests because of some Danish newspaper's publication of images that were considered racist. I don't care that people want to make fun of Muhammad or draw Muhammad. I care that Charlie Hebdo creates cartoons that over-emphasize stereotypical Arab features we think are "ugly" and tries to paint a picture of Arabic peoples as "ugly" and "ignorant." I especially care when those persons are generally treated as second class citizens in France, other European nations, and America. It's the same as the Nazis making cartoons that overemphasized certain stereotypical Jewish features to make them look ugly. Its the same as American Black Face to insult African Americans. Or the many racist cartoons published in New York City during the TB outbreak to make African Americans out to be ugly, poor, disease-ridden caricatures. Charlie Hebdo was simply following in the footsteps of these other examples.

Satire is great. It's an art form that critiques structures through comedy. However, not all satire is created equal. You want good French satire? Read Michel Houellebecq's book Soumission (Submission) when it comes out in english later this year. He creates a France ruled by a Muslim political party. However, Houellebecq is playing on a French fear of Islam, Arabs, and arabization. He is using satire in the way it was meant to be used, the way other great French satirists like Voltaire have always used it, to battle against structures of power, not structures of the weak.

Blaming Islam for the violence is like blaming Blacks for the race riots back in the 1960s. Yeah, they were the ones to destroy property with their own hands, but it was the only response they thought they could muster against a system that continually tore them down and spat on their dignity. I don't condone violence but let's be real, racism (Islamophobia at its root being a fear of the "other," the Arab, not necessarily a fear of Islam) is the real problem here and always has been.

 

[leibowde84]

While I would never agree with extremism or the actions of the terrorists who attacked and killed the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, I do think that French/European Islamophobia is more to the root of the problem than Islam is.

Charlie Hebdo is not the first time that the Islamic community has expressed outrage over the depictions not only of the prophet but more importantly themselves. I believe in the early 2000s there were some protests because of some Danish newspaper's publication of images that were considered racist. I don't care that people want to make fun of Muhammad or draw Muhammad. I care that Charlie Hebdo creates cartoons that over-emphasize Arab features we think are "ugly" and tries to paint a picture of Arabic peoples as "ugly" and "ignorant." I especially care when those persons are generally treated as second class citizens in France, other European nations, and America. It's the same as the Nazis making cartoons that overemphasized certain stereotypical Jewish features to make them look ugly. Its the same as American Black Face to insult African Americans. Or the many racist cartoons published in New York City during the TB outbreak to make African Americans out to be ugly, poor, disease-ridden caricatures. Charlie Hebdo was simply following in the footsteps of these other examples.

Satire is great. It's an art form that critiques structures through comedy. However, not all satire is created equal. You want good French satire? Read Michel Houellebecq's book Soumission (Submission) when it comes out in english later this year. He creates a France ruled by a Muslim political party. However, Houellebecq is playing on a French fear of Islam, Arabs, and arabization. He is using satire in the way it was meant to be used, the way other great French satirists like Voltaire have always used it, to battle against structures of power, not structures of the weak.

Blaming Islam for the violence is like blaming Blacks for the race riots back in the 1960s. Yeah, they were the ones to destroy property with their own hands, but it was the only response they thought they could muster against a system that continually tore them down and spat on their dignity. I don't condone violence but let's be real, racism (Islamophobia at its root being a fear of the "other," the Arab, not necessarily a fear of Islam) is the real problem here and always has been.

See ... that's the problem. No one should be able to silence anyone from speaking their mind. Whether you are insulting Muslims, Jews, Christians, Blacks, Whites, etc. We should all have the freedom to express our views. The beauty of the whole thing is that we can express our disgust for the nut jobs who do those things as well. The only problem is immature idiots who think that violence is an appropriate retaliation to this expression. Without that scum, we would all be fine. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[leibowde84]

While I would never agree with extremism or the actions of the terrorists who attacked and killed the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, I do think that French/European Islamophobia is more to the root of the problem than Islam is.

Charlie Hebdo is not the first time that the Islamic community has expressed outrage over the depictions not only of the prophet but more importantly themselves. I believe in the early 2000s there were some protests because of some Danish newspaper's publication of images that were considered racist. I don't care that people want to make fun of Muhammad or draw Muhammad. I care that Charlie Hebdo creates cartoons that over-emphasize stereotypical Arab features we think are "ugly" and tries to paint a picture of Arabic peoples as "ugly" and "ignorant." I especially care when those persons are generally treated as second class citizens in France, other European nations, and America. It's the same as the Nazis making cartoons that overemphasized certain stereotypical Jewish features to make them look ugly. Its the same as American Black Face to insult African Americans. Or the many racist cartoons published in New York City during the TB outbreak to make African Americans out to be ugly, poor, disease-ridden caricatures. Charlie Hebdo was simply following in the footsteps of these other examples.

Satire is great. It's an art form that critiques structures through comedy. However, not all satire is created equal. You want good French satire? Read Michel Houellebecq's book Soumission (Submission) when it comes out in english later this year. He creates a France ruled by a Muslim political party. However, Houellebecq is playing on a French fear of Islam, Arabs, and arabization. He is using satire in the way it was meant to be used, the way other great French satirists like Voltaire have always used it, to battle against structures of power, not structures of the weak.

Blaming Islam for the violence is like blaming Blacks for the race riots back in the 1960s. Yeah, they were the ones to destroy property with their own hands, but it was the only response they thought they could muster against a system that continually tore them down and spat on their dignity. I don't condone violence but let's be real, racism (Islamophobia at its root being a fear of the "other," the Arab, not necessarily a fear of Islam) is the real problem here and always has been.

And changing the subject to try to highlight that Islam is not the only culprit is ludicrous. I agree completely, but that excuse merely distracts one from doing something about it, mkaing them think that their religionis being singled out, when nothing could be further from the truth. This problem cannot be solved by passing around blame. Anyone who uses violence to defend their religious beliefs should be ridiculed as the inhuman piece of garbage that they are. No exceptions. There is nothing more evil and contrary to the benefit of our global society.

 

[leibowde84]

While I would never agree with extremism or the actions of the terrorists who attacked and killed the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, I do think that French/European Islamophobia is more to the root of the problem than Islam is.

Charlie Hebdo is not the first time that the Islamic community has expressed outrage over the depictions not only of the prophet but more importantly themselves. I believe in the early 2000s there were some protests because of some Danish newspaper's publication of images that were considered racist. I don't care that people want to make fun of Muhammad or draw Muhammad. I care that Charlie Hebdo creates cartoons that over-emphasize stereotypical Arab features we think are "ugly" and tries to paint a picture of Arabic peoples as "ugly" and "ignorant." I especially care when those persons are generally treated as second class citizens in France, other European nations, and America. It's the same as the Nazis making cartoons that overemphasized certain stereotypical Jewish features to make them look ugly. Its the same as American Black Face to insult African Americans. Or the many racist cartoons published in New York City during the TB outbreak to make African Americans out to be ugly, poor, disease-ridden caricatures. Charlie Hebdo was simply following in the footsteps of these other examples.

Satire is great. It's an art form that critiques structures through comedy. However, not all satire is created equal. You want good French satire? Read Michel Houellebecq's book Soumission (Submission) when it comes out in english later this year. He creates a France ruled by a Muslim political party. However, Houellebecq is playing on a French fear of Islam, Arabs, and arabization. He is using satire in the way it was meant to be used, the way other great French satirists like Voltaire have always used it, to battle against structures of power, not structures of the weak.

Blaming Islam for the violence is like blaming Blacks for the race riots back in the 1960s. Yeah, they were the ones to destroy property with their own hands, but it was the only response they thought they could muster against a system that continually tore them down and spat on their dignity. I don't condone violence but let's be real, racism (Islamophobia at its root being a fear of the "other," the Arab, not necessarily a fear of Islam) is the real problem here and always has been.

Have you looked at the CH cartoons over the past few years?! they ridicule every religion. It is their God given right to make fun of whoever they want. And since they obviously did not limit it to Muslims, what is the freaking problem?! I was offended by some of the cartoons, but I sure as hell don't have the right to ask to censor them. That is a slap in the face to freedom.

 

[Duraza]

See ... that's the problem. No one should be able to silence anyone from speaking their mind. Whether you are insulting Muslims, Jews, Christians, Blacks, Whites, etc. We should all have the freedom to express our views. The beauty of the whole thing is that we can express our disgust for the nut jobs who do those things as well. The only problem is immature idiots who think that violence is an appropriate retaliation to this expression. Without that scum, we would all be fine. Wouldn't you agree?

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.

 

[Duraza]

Also, apologies for the double post. I'm assuming there isn't a rule against it or anything. I just didn't want anyone to read this later and think, "How does all this stuff he's saying about the Black Panthers fit in at all."

The example I mentioned earlier, back in the early 2000s when Muslims were protesting some Danish cartoons is the reason. As soon as the protests started everyone started defending the cartoonists' right to free speech. Most basically told Muslim protestors to quiet down. But I don't remember seeing anyone acknowledging that Muslims had a right to protest, also covered in Free speech. Instead everyone saw them as this threat to free speech and trying to shove their oppressive views down our throats.

Their free speech was delegitimized, plain and simple. The problem was not that a newspaper made fun of Islam. It's that the world told Muslims to quiet down and get back in their place when they protested. We didn't need to applaud that they were being peaceful. But the only debate should have been over whether this Danish newspaper had gross/racist cartoons or whether they were acceptable. Instead it turned into "those darn muslims are off threatening free speech again."

...Again sorry. I never obtained that oh so crucial skill called brevity.

 

[sampuna]

If you are a buddhist it is the same why would you be attached to this at all?

being Buddhist, and human most of all. humanity, with its diverse ditthis (views), shape their worldviews. And that's how all of us land here on this thread to discuss what's right and wrong. to the believers, the religious texts says it all, drowning all logic.

 

[gsa]

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.

 

[Mycroft]

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

 

[gsa]

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

Except for a few things: punishment for blasphemy and apostasy is within the mainstream of Islam, and Westboro's homophobia is within the mainstream of Christianity.

 

[fantome profane]

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

...and no less.