Why insult?

[beenie]

Yes. It seems that there is demand of 3,000,000 copies of the next edition, which will have a character of Mohammed. The magazine usually printed only 60,000 copies, of which only 30,000 were sold. Millions and millions of people who had never heard of Charlie Hebdo will now be reading at least the next few issues. People like to talk and gossip. It seems putting a bullet into free speech, even terrible speech, only serves to spread that very speech. These terrorists did more to spread the image of Mohamed than Charlie Hebdo ever did.

If I could love this post, I would. Nothing brings more attention to stupidity like banning and reacting just like everyone knew they would.

 

[beenie]

Actions of a few extremists or radicalists should not have to be attributed to the one religion or faith

Where did anyone attribute the actions of these terrorists to all of Islam?

 

[leibowde84]

Where did anyone attribute the actions of these terrorists to all of Islam?

Good point. And those that do should be ridiculed along with the terrorists. It is an ignorant point of view and should be ... wait for it ... INSULTED!!!!

 

[leibowde84]

Where did anyone attribute the actions of these terrorists to all of Islam?

The real problem is that religious beliefs for some reason are treated differently than other ideas, ideals, notions, thoughts, and strongly held beliefs. Why should religious beliefs be treated any differently than other beliefs?

 

[beenie]

The real problem is that religious beliefs for some reason are treated differently than other ideas, ideals, notions, thoughts, and strongly held beliefs. Why should religious beliefs be treated any differently than other beliefs?

Good question.

My best guess is that people get overly emotional about their religious beliefs; this is a huge problem, because it prevents them from seeing issues clearly. People are too scared to challenge the "unknown"... you know, in case they're "wrong".

 

[Smart_Guy]

Its kind of like going into an all black neighborhood and yelling "I hate n words". Sure you have freedom of speech, but its an incredibly stupid thing to do.

So effective that an immigrant from Somalia has just been stabbed to death and swastikas painted on his home .in Germany

Yes, those are some examples that render freedom of speech in our subject here not worth it.

Those educated well in Islam won't resort to terrorism for such subject. The problem is with the extremest on a hand and the stubborn producers on the other. The extremest will go killing the innocent and the producers will cause death to those unrelated.

They did a great job fighting terrorism. So many people turned on the extremists because of this and it showed how pathetic this form of Islam truly is. I think it was very effective.

Cartoons don't kill people ... terrorists do!! Anyone who is willing to be violent over a drawing isn't worth considering when it comes to free speech.

The cartoons made people turn on Muslims in general not just terrorists. An average non Muslim will know a Muslim as a Muslim only, and will not go and ask the Muslims whither they terrorists of not. Give a loaded gun to a thug and tell people guns don't kill people, people kill people. A kitchen knife can make tasty sandwich and also can kill a human. And besides, how does drawing the Prophet in an insulting way fight terrorism? The prophet is a figure of Islam as a whole even if the terrorists use his existence as an excuse for their atrocities.

I agree with you in the concept that the cartoons aren't an excuse to get violent for, but the problem is in the side effects. Why not drop a very small amount of the freedom of speech just for the sake of not causing death to others? As I said before, people all around the world already know that Muslims have some crazies and that Muslims in general don't like their beliefs to be insulted. Why do producers keep insisting in doing it? They should at least know the meaning of the word compromise; e.i. the small amount of freedom in our subject for the sake of precious lives.

I will answer you soon.

I'm sorry, my post was long. To which part are you referring?

 

[Trolle]

Its kind of like going into an all black neighborhood and yelling "I hate n words". Sure you have freedom of speech, but its an incredibly stupid thing to do.

True story. Three young White people strapped themselves with automatic weapons (perfectly legal in open carry Ohio) and proceeded to walk through a predominately Black neighborhood yelling racial slurs. No one of course did anything to them because they were armed. A few days later, one of the men was shot in the leg (not sure if it was in retaliation to his stupid actions) and they were all arrested for inciting violence.

Should these men been arrested for inciting violence or do our laws protecting freedom of speech allow for such actions?

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, those are some examples that render freedom of speech in our subject here not worth it.

Those educated well in Islam won't resort to terrorism for such subject. The problem is with the extremest on a hand and the stubborn producers on the other. The extremest will go killing the innocent and the producers will cause death to those unrelated.



The cartoons made people turn on Muslims in general not just terrorists. An average non Muslim will know a Muslim as a Muslim only, and will not go and ask the Muslims whither they terrorists of not. Give a loaded gun to a thug and tell people guns don't kill people, people kill people. A kitchen knife can make tasty sandwich and also can kill a human. And besides, how does drawing the Prophet in an insulting way fight terrorism? The prophet is a figure of Islam as a whole even if the terrorists use his existence as an excuse for their atrocities.

I agree with you in the concept that the cartoons aren't an excuse to get violent for, but the problem is in the side effects. Why not drop a very small amount of the freedom of speech just for the sake of not causing death to others? As I said before, people all around the world already know that Muslims have some crazies and that Muslims in general don't like their beliefs to be insulted. Why do producers keep insisting in doing it? They should at least know the meaning of the word compromise; e.i. the small amount of freedom in our subject for the sake of precious lives.



I'm sorry, my post was long. To which part are you referring?

I would answer that by saying, again, that the cartoons and cartoonists did not hurt anyone

True story. Three young White people strapped themselves with automatic weapons (perfectly legal in open carry Ohio) and proceeded to walk through a predominately Black neighborhood yelling racial slurs. No one of course did anything to them because they were armed. A few days later, one of the men was shot in the leg (not sure if it was in retaliation to his stupid actions) and they were all arrested for inciting violence.

Should these men been arrested for inciting violence or do our laws protecting freedom of speech allow for such actions?

I would say that marching through a neighborhood yelling racial slurs would be considered "fighting words." A cartoon, on the other hand, is pretty far from it. I agree that there should be limits to free speech, like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. The difference is that it is reasonable for people to react and get hurt if someone yells fire in a crouded room. Being violent because of a drawing is so far from reasonable that it should not be considered.

 

[Lyndon]

Why is insulting people so darn important to you????

 

[Smart_Guy]

I would answer that by saying, again, that the cartoons and cartoonists did not hurt anyone

I dunno man/ma'am, the last number of dead people in that incident was 7 if I remember correctly. If those cartoons weren't drawn in the first place, would those 7 people still have died? I don't think the producers were ignorant that other producers before them did the same thing and terrorists retaliated to it causing death to the innocent. We all know the saying "don't play with fire".

Provoking and indirect approach are becoming more and more close to directly doing harm.

I know that the cartoons and cartoonists shouldn't have hurt anyone, but only in a perfect world. This real world is full of imperfection.

 

[leibowde84]

Why is insulting people so darn important to you????

Insulting ideas/beliefs is a great way to initiate debate and deep thought. But, our freedom from censorship and not giving into intimidation from crazies is extremely important to me.

 

[leibowde84]

Why is insulting people so darn important to you????

Insulting people is another story, but ideas should never be off limits.

 

[leibowde84]

Why is insulting people so darn important to you????

But, I'm not sure where you got the idea that insulting people was important to me. Insulting ideas (beliefs and/or dogma would obviously be included in this) should always be tolerated.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Insulting people is another story, but ideas should never be off limits.

But that's what Charlie Hebdo did in the first place. They insulted Muhammad in drawing him not just as a person, which alone Muslims consider insulting, but in different insulting inappropriate ways. Muhammad is a person that Muslims take as a father figure. Why would anyone insult a father figure? Even if people think it is okay to insult people, if they know that those connected don't want it and asked to not do it, why would they still do it? Are there no respect, manners, morals, principles and consideration left in people these days?

If Charlie Hebdo thinks insulting the identity of Muhammad is a way to fight terrorism, then they are absolute ignorant lunatics. Such a thing is related to Islam as a whole. Why don't they just stick with insulting ideas only?

 

[leibowde84]

But that's what Charlie Hebdo did in the first place. They insulted Muhammad in drawing him not just as a person, which alone Muslims consider insulting, but in different insulting inappropriate ways. Muhammad is a person that Muslims take as a father figure. Why would anyone insult a father figure? Even if people think it is okay to insult people, if they know that those connected don't want it and asked to not do it, why would they still do it? Are there no respect, manners, morals, principles and consideration left in people these days?

If Charlie Hebdo thinks insulting the identity of Muhammad is a way to fight terrorism, then they are absolute ignorant lunatics. Such a thing is related to Islam as a whole. Why don't they just stick with insulting ideas only?

Honestly, I find it extremely hard to believe that Muhammad would care either way, as he never said that images of him were not allowed. That rule was created after his death to prevent idolatry. But, nevertheless that would still be a personal insult to Mohammad that Muslims happen to take personally. But that isn't the issue. My problem is the insistance that you are suggesting that we limit our speech simply because people will act irrationally as a result. And, Muhammad claiming to be a prophet opened himself up to criticism and insults, which he faced with peace during his life. So, when we insult Muhammad personally, you are suggesting that we expect others to react with violence. If that were the case, I would call Islam an extremely dangerous theology. Fortunately I feEl strongly that most Muslims take this just like any insult to a belief system. It might anger them, but violence as retribution doesn't even enter their mind.

 

[leibowde84]

But that's what Charlie Hebdo did in the first place. They insulted Muhammad in drawing him not just as a person, which alone Muslims consider insulting, but in different insulting inappropriate ways. Muhammad is a person that Muslims take as a father figure. Why would anyone insult a father figure? Even if people think it is okay to insult people, if they know that those connected don't want it and asked to not do it, why would they still do it? Are there no respect, manners, morals, principles and consideration left in people these days?

If Charlie Hebdo thinks insulting the identity of Muhammad is a way to fight terrorism, then they are absolute ignorant lunatics. Such a thing is related to Islam as a whole. Why don't they just stick with insulting ideas only?

And please keep in mind, my feelings against censorship do not in any way mean that I think the cartools weren't in extremely bad taste. I didn't think they were funny or appropriate knowing the Muslims I do. But I will argue for their right to publish it without deserving any kind of physical retribution.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Honestly, I find it extremely hard to believe that Muhammad would care either way, as he never said that images of him were not allowed. That rule was created after his death to prevent idolatry. But, nevertheless that would still be a personal insult to Mohammad that Muslims happen to take personally. But that isn't the issue. My problem is the insistance that you are suggesting that we limit our speech simply because people will act irrationally as a result. And, Muhammad claiming to be a prophet opened himself up to criticism and insults, which he faced with peace during his life. So, when we insult Muhammad personally, you are suggesting that we expect others to react with violence. If that were the case, I would call Islam an extremely dangerous theology. Fortunately I feEl strongly that most Muslims take this just like any insult to a belief system. It might anger them, but violence as retribution doesn't even enter their mind.

And I too "know" that Muhammad wouldn't take the insult of these toons, he would just keep quiet and tell other to ignore it as he did in his days for similar treatments. The problem is that now Muslims consider it an insult and don't want it. Isn't that enough? Why can't people respect the feelings of ~1.6 billion people? So many people censor the N word used for Africans just to consider their feelings. How difficult it is to do that with Muslims too? It was originally aimed at terrorists? If so, what is the fault of the moderate Muslims like me to have a father figure of theirs insulted?

I'm not against the freedom of speech, I'm against using it for ulterior motives (abuse it) and using it stupidly. The latter caused the death of 7 innocent people. I'm not suggesting to expect it with violence, I'm reminding you of facts of similar incidents that happened to have violence and that people should take it as an example. To use their heads and (indirectly) prevent possible deaths. If you think Islam is an extremely dangerous theology, I wouldn't be reasoning with you now, but instead planning to bomb some place full of innocent non Muslims, and I'd never do that.

Violence is never the answer, but unfortunately it is there. We have to tackle it with smart actions not ones like the subject toons.

And please keep in mind, my feelings against censorship do not in any way mean that I think the cartools weren't in extremely bad taste. I didn't think they were funny or appropriate knowing the Muslims I do. But I will argue for their right to publish it without deserving any kind of physical retribution.

But you already know that with that right to do it, violence will most likely happen as a result. You would be encouraging them to get themselves killed.

Tell me, how would you feel if the Christ Jesus or the Virgin Mary were drawn in an X-rated way like they did to Muhammad? Would you be happy about it? I wouldn't. Wouldn't you wish it wouldn't have happened?

I'm not arguing against the right to do it, I'm arguing to be smart and give priorities. Just today I was discussing this subject with my mom and brother and I was very upset at the sad end of the 7 victims because of a stupid decision from the director of the establishment. No one would keep their rightful lane driving in a highway if they noticed a long heavy weight truck drifted from the other lane to hit them and send them directly to heaven (or hell), just because it is their right to keep that lane.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes. It seems that there is demand of 3,000,000 copies of the next edition, which will have a character of Mohammed. The magazine usually printed only 60,000 copies, of which only 30,000 were sold. Millions and millions of people who had never heard of Charlie Hebdo will now be reading at least the next few issues. People like to talk and gossip. It seems putting a bullet into free speech, even terrible speech, only serves to spread that very speech. These terrorists did more to spread the image of Mohamed than Charlie Hebdo ever did.

Great comment buddy. You are spot on. This is why it is insane to say that this cartoon wasn't a huge success in making extremists show their true stupidity. Very effective cartoon.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yes. It seems that there is demand of 3,000,000 copies of the next edition, which will have a character of Mohammed. The magazine usually printed only 60,000 copies, of which only 30,000 were sold. Millions and millions of people who had never heard of Charlie Hebdo will now be reading at least the next few issues. People like to talk and gossip. It seems putting a bullet into free speech, even terrible speech, only serves to spread that very speech. These terrorists did more to spread the image of Mohamed than Charlie Hebdo ever did.

Absolutely true.

All moderate Muslims I know, and I, have the same exact idea. Some Muslims even risked it and made Youtube videos and memes of it to spread awareness and get something useful through the skulls of those stupid extremests to basically ignore it or at least approach to the producers with reason.

This article:
Call of Duty map removed at request of Muslim gamers - GameSpot
Features a Muslim asking a game producer/developer to remove some offensive contents after giving them the reason how it is offensive. The developers did respond positively to it. (Yup, I'm a gamer ).

I want this to reach all Muslims. Prophet Muhammad even said that moderation makes things beautiful. It is a hadeeth.

 

[oldbadger]

It was near two weeks ago that two ISIS terrorists killed 14 persons including 2 Muslims and after this time French goverment began insulting to all that Islam sacred. Terrorists were two radicalists but question is if two radicalists were responsible for the attacks why Islam were insulted?.....................

Hello.....
1. The two terrorists were not ISIS, but Al Quaeda.
2. They trained in Yemen, not Syria.

The French Government was very bad, in my opinion, for allowing the insults to continue for ten years. In my opinion it continues to be very bad in allowing insults and indecencies to continue after this tragedy.
Not many British medias have copied all this, and the BBC refuses to show copies of insults.