Charlie Hebdo under terrorist attack

[Clueless Northman]

Charlie Hebdo and the gouaille tradition

Since the killers were French, the "pictures are more powerful because they can hurt people in other cultures, who wouldn't understand a French text" doesn't hold ground. Those weren't killers that come from Yemen after having lived their all their life just to shoot them. They're deep in French culture, with French education.

[Horza]

Since the killers were French, the "pictures are more powerful because they can hurt people in other cultures, who wouldn't understand a French text" doesn't hold ground. Those weren't killers that come from Yemen after having lived their all their life just to shoot them. They're deep in French culture, with French education.

Where does Goldhammer make that argument?

[Spockydog]

Extremists should be antagonized. They should be antagonized and mocked at all times.

Indeed.

[Sixshells]

Individuals who want to be offended can find offense in pretty much anything. Radicals/fundamentalists (supporting any religion/faith/ideology) always find a cause. But the radicals are not representatives of any particular religion. Not sure how much you can give in to the extremists who are minorities even among their own religion.

I have spent quite a bit of time with educated devout Muslims. What I understand from my discussions with them is that they were not offended by the cartoons because they were caricatures. Many educated Muslims took offense because it was a physical portrayal of their prophet. Apparently Mohammad had explicitly asked his disciples to make sure there are no drawings or portraits of him. He had given two reasons. He wanted to be the prophet of all humanity and was concerned that his portraits will associate him with a particular race/color. The second reason is he did not want idolatry stemming from the drawings. Idolatry is one of the big no nos of Islam. I am sure some of the Muslims did take offense because of what they perceived as an attack on their prophet (just like there would be offended Christians if someone was making fun of Jesus). But this discussion was quite enlightening for me.

As for the shootings, I am absolutely horrified. My condolences to the families and friends of the victims.

The big point you are missing is this: nothing gives them the right to regulate what non believers do. If a non Muslim wants to draw a picture of somebody and say it's Allah, they should have the right to do so with Muslim people not giving two shits about it, because who cares about a non believer breaking the rules anyway. Heck, a Muslim, and any person of any religion, should have the right to at least question the rules of that religion, without it being an offensive thing for the people believing in that religion. Otherwise it's just allowing dogmatists to intimidate all the other believers into submission to their rules.

[Rockroi]

The big point you are missing is this: nothing gives them the right to regulate what non believers do. If a non Muslim wants to draw a picture of somebody and say it's Allah,

Many Muslims would claim that the Quran and the Hadith say otherwise. That the Quran is the rule for all and that if somebody does something against the Prophet or the Faith, than that is more than enough reason to have a jihad (this is the critical change in Islam after the defeat of Gamal Abdel Nassar after The Six Day War). Any attack on the faith or the Prophet gives rise to the jihad. While the concept of jihad is to be only in "defense" of Islam, because there is an element within Islam that claims that a CARTOON of the Prophet IS an attack, than an adequate defense of Islam is to destroy those who are attacking it, those drawing the cartoon.

According to some, the Quran IS what gives them that right, because its derived from Allah through his Prophet, Muhammad. We are all obligated to follow it and therefore, those who do not must be turned and if they continue with their obstinate they must be destroyed.

So, your last statement- that its just intimidating all other people to submit to their rules - is the most accurate.

The discussion was, should we feel morally obliged to do something, just because terrorists object to it? Is that the best way to show we support free speech, or are there other ways?

Fair enough.

[trickster]

The big point you are missing is this: nothing gives them the right to regulate what non believers do. If a non Muslim wants to draw a picture of somebody and say it's Allah, they should have the right to do so with Muslim people not giving two shits about it, because who cares about a non believer breaking the rules anyway. Heck, a Muslim, and any person of any religion, should have the right to at least question the rules of that religion, without it being an offensive thing for the people believing in that religion. Otherwise it's just allowing dogmatists to intimidate all the other believers into submission to their rules.

Hmm... I think you are missing my point. I was not advocating any individual or groups rights to be morally outraged. All I was saying was many Muslims are not offended by the caricature nature of the cartoons. They are offended as they are physical manifestations of the prophet. Period. And I am not sure whether non-Muslims understand that. I hope I have made my point clear.

If you ask me, even most Muslims offended by the satirical aspect of the cartoons are not likely to start shooting at people. Radical minorities do not represent a religion.

[Suttree]

Many Muslims would claim that the Quran and the Hadith say otherwise. That the Quran is the rule for all and that if somebody does something against the Prophet or the Faith, than that is more than enough reason to have a jihad (this is the critical change in Islam after the defeat of Gamal Abdel Nassar after The Six Day War).

Actually the vast majority of Muslims would say that type response is irjaf not jihad from what I understand.

Radical minorities do not represent a religion.

It's crazy how many times this needs to be pointed out.

[Fragile Bird]

As I previously posted, there was a police action in Reims, and now the report is that 2 of the attackers have been captured and the third is dead.

Congratulations to the French police.

[The Once and Future King]

I am proud to stand with anyone against these cowards whose beliefs are so shaky that they need to kill and sow fear to strengthen them.

Having said that polls and studys consistently show the majority of Muslims in the world support Sharia law.

[dog-days]

I am proud to stand with anyone against these cowards whose beliefs are so shaky that they need to kill and sow fear to strengthen them.

Having said that polls and studys consistently show the majority of Muslims in the world support Sharia law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

[voodooqueen126]

Though I don't really agree about your view on what's martyrdom and what's not, you do have a point.

This event will obviously be used (it's already starting on twitter) to feed hatred of islam, which grows stronger and stronger in our country. Marine Le Pen (National Front, extreme right) is sure to win Elections in 2017 after that...

One of the great tragedies for Europe is that the conservative moment is reactionary and derives from Romanticism, and is therefore inevitably bound up with antisemitism.

Europe is doomed: she will either succumb to Dar Al Islam, or go back to Fascism.

[Suttree]

Having said that polls and studys consistently show the majority of Muslims in the world support Sharia law.

Sigh.

[TrueMetis]

I am proud to stand with anyone against these cowards whose beliefs are so shaky that they need to kill and sow fear to strengthen them.

Having said that polls and studys consistently show the majority of Muslims in the world support Sharia law.

Is this sort of like how a lot of Christians think that the law in the west is Biblically inspired?

[Rockroi]

Actually the vast majority of Muslims would say that type response is irjaf not jihad from what I understand.

What you wrote does not contradict what I said. I said "many" and because Islam is a religion that constantly- and some would say "vehemently" -reminds us that 1.2 Billion people are Muslim, even if 5% believed this (and the numbver is assuredly much, much higher), we are talking about a group of 60 MILLION people.

That is "many."

Is this sort of like how a lot of Christians think that the law in the west is Biblically inspired?

Ah, no.

Here is a Pew Research poll that shows about Sharia Law, circa 2013:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Some highlights:

- According to the survey findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of God.

Although many Muslims around the world say sharia should be the law of the land in their country, the survey reveals divergent opinions about the precise application of Islamic law.

-Support for making sharia the official law of the land varies significantly across the six major regions included in the study. In countries across South Asia, Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa region most favor making sharia their country’s official legal code. By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land.

- 42% of Russian Muslims want Sharia to be the law of Russia;

-In sub-Saharan Africa, at least half of Muslims in most countries surveyed say they favor making sharia the official law of the land, including more than seven-in-ten in Niger (86%), Djibouti (82%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (74%) and Nigeria (71%).

-In South Asia, high percentages in all the countries surveyed support making sharia the official law, including nearly universal support among Muslims in Afghanistan (99%). More than eight-in-ten Muslims in Pakistan (84%) and Bangladesh (82%) also hold this view. The percentage of Muslims who say they favor making Islamic law the official law in their country is nearly as high across the Southeast Asian countries surveyed (86% in Malaysia, 77% in Thailand and 72% in Indonesia)

-Other countries: Iraq - 91%, Palestinian Territories- 89%, Morocco, 83%, Niger, 86%, Nigeria, 91%.

Now... the one glimmer of hope is this:

Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. Only in five of 21 countries where this follow-up question was asked do at least half say all citizens should be subject to Islamic law (Kyrgystan - 62%, Indonesia - 50%, Afghanistan - 61%, Egypt - 74%, Jordan - 58%). Other countries that were more than 33% - Turkey (43%), Malaysia (41%), Bangladesh (39%), Pakistan (34%), Lebanon (48%), Palestinian Territories (44%), Tunisia (40%), Iraq (38%).

These numbers- that Sharia law should ONLY apply to Muslims - seems ... okay... but then when you consider that in a relatively "moderate" country... like Lebanon its at 48%, that's hardly a small, fragment of a fraction of the population.

It seems more like "many."

[Sixshells]

Hmm... I think you are missing my point. I was not advocating any individual or groups rights to be morally outraged. All I was saying was many Muslims are not offended by the caricature nature of the cartoons. They are offended as they are physical manifestations of the prophet. Period. And I am not sure whether non-Muslims understand that. I hope I have made my point clear.

If you ask me, even most Muslims offended by the satirical aspect of the cartoons are not likely to start shooting at people. Radical minorities do not represent a religion.

That was precisely the point about them being more offended by the transgression to the rules of their faith (even by people who don't believe in that faith) than by the satirical aspect of the cartoons that I was addressing.

It is worrying that people would take more offence to that since we are talking about breaking the rules of a religion by people that don't follow it.

As I previously posted, there was a police action in Reims, and now the report is that 2 of the attackers have been captured and the third is dead.

Congratulations to the French police.

The action in Reims was a search in an appartment.

Only the youngest of the 3 has been arrested, he turned himself over to the police. There are also people close to the two brothers that are being held in custody.

[Gears of the Beast]

Hopefully the media doesn't completely capitulate to these Muslim terrorists as they did with the Danish cartoons. Instead of all the fear mongering "Paris Under Attack!" headlines I would much rather see every major news source publishing cartoons/parodies of Muhammad and any other aspects of the putrid cult of Islam worth mocking. When a group thinks that they can impose their own violent restrictions on freedom of speech because they're offended it's up to the rest of us to show them that this is absolutely not the case. Islam doesn't get a free pass because it has some extreme brutes who are willing to murder and die for their cause. Islam must be mocked as the superstitious drivel that it is - along with every other religion. If we see media organisations scared to publish these cartoons as we did in 2005 then that is a resounding victory for terrorism. I hope everyone in this thread has actually seen the cartoons that are worth murdering 12 people over.

[Suttree]

What you wrote does not contradict what I said. I said "many" and because Islam is a religion that constantly- and some would say "vehemently" -reminds us that 1.2 Billion people are Muslim, even if 5% believed this (and the numbver is assuredly much, much higher), we are talking about a group of 60 MILLION people.

That is "many."

Ah so what you meant to say was a small minority. Thanks for clarifying.

[Rockroi]

Read above- I clarified a bit. And 60 Million is "many." Your attempt to rationalize the threat is... cute.

[trickster]

That was precisely the point about them being more offended by the transgression to the rules of their faith (even by people who don't believe in that faith) than by the satirical aspect of the cartoons that I was addressing.

It is worrying that people would take more offence to that since we are talking about breaking the rules of a religion by people that don't follow it.

The action in Reims was a search in an appartment.

Only the youngest of the 3 has been arrested, he turned himself over to the police. There are also people close to the two brothers that are being held in custody.

My point was do the people of other faith realize that it is the so called "breaking the rule" and not the satirical aspect that is offensive to many Muslims? And I think Muslims who are offended by this transgression (not the satire) are not going start shooting at people. Imo, most radicals do atrocious things and then try to use their faith to justify their actions not the other way round.

[TrueMetis]

Read above- I clarified a bit. And 60 Million is "many." Your attempt to rationalize the threat is... cute.

As part of 1.2 billion 60 million is not many, especially when you consider that 60 million is spread across the planet.