[rikacomet]

First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam.

But, if I were to take the liberty to express my own opinion, I would say honestly, I think both parties were at wrong here. First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted a finger or even wished for those people to get hurt (there is specific mention of this in Islam). It is against the moral of our religion to engage in such "eye for an eye" notions. Yet people (like the 4 suspects) who are not aware of their own religion and the finer lines tend to do these things when agitated or pushed in a corner.

On the other hand, Religion is a personal affair. People are serious about it, be it any religion. People live and die by the religion, it is the very guide of majority of the people in this world. And if someone portrays something so closely associated to people, it is a kin to playing with their feelings. And that is where things start to get ugly, and such mishaps happen.

Satire is accepted in Islam, as evident from the semi-fictional writings about Mullah Nasruddin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasreddin

But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much. Besides the additional fact, that impersonation/impersonification of Prophet Muhammad is highly condemned in Islam. Even if we are to write a play on factual things about him, it is prohibited to have someone portray him (even for a good/just reason). To say that in other words, to Muslims, a graphical satire is acceptable on anyone except the prophets, which includes Moses, Jesus, Abraham, etc. Yet, if someone does want to amuse himself or exercise his liberty knowing that it is something that hurts us, we simply have to ignore him. Things should not go further than that.

People in the west have indeed respected this, as seen in the movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074896/

Let us understand each others liberties as well as sensitivities, so that by standing firm together, we will all make a better society, both in France and the World.

[k-mcgrady]

>> "But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much."

There are NO excuses for what happened. None. Just because a certain group of people (no matter who they are) believe something doesn't mean the rest of the world should not offend that belief because some people might not like it. It doesn't matter if that belief is Islam, Judaism, Scientology, or a belief in pigs that fly. I have the right to make fun of it, you have the right to make fun of my beliefs, and no amount of satire justifies violence. We can't live our lives trying not to offend because some people take their beliefs too seriously. I'm Catholic. There are plenty of people who think that's nuts and I understand that. I would never think of hurting them because of it and I would never try to justify anyone who did.

[rikacomet]

The liberty to express yourself is not the only liberty in the world. I, You and All of Us have the liberty to be offended as well.

The point is: -what to do if you are offended? To which I say simply ignore it happened.

-why offend someone in the first place?

[krig]

One reason would be that the very idea of religion is offensive to me. That someone else, without evidence, says not only that they know how the universe came to be but that they have direct contact with the divine creator who tells them how all people should live their lives, is an offensive idea to me!

How do we resolve this? The only solution is for at least one of us to ignore the offense caused by the other, or we cannot live together in society.

[Yoric]

> -why offend someone in the first place?

To this, there is a simple historical explanation: because that's, in practice, how France gained its freedom. Sure, there was the French Revolution, but it took more than one century before the Catholic Church stopped being the main power in France, before it became acceptable to be agnostic, atheist, protestant, muslim or jew in France. The main fight took place in the written press, largely through caricatures, by showing irreverence to the Catholic Church. It is only through this that France eventually became a non-religious republic, in 1905.

In other words, this kind of Free Speech and irreverence is deeply ingrained in French history, political correctness be damned. Charlie was created in part in defiance to the hero worship towards General De Gaulle, and has been irreverent towards every power figure ever since.

[jacquesm]

> why offend someone in the first place?

Why this insistence on feeling offended? The prophet is the one being mocked, not you.

[rikacomet]

To offend him is to offend me. The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family.

[jacquesm]

> To offend him is to offend me.

You can't really offend that which does not currently exist. I can't offend Genghis Khan any more than I can offend the prophet or Jesus.

> The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family.

No, that's not the same way.

[kaybe]

>> The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family. >No, that's not the same way.

Maybe for those offended it might be? It can explain a lot of the anger.

[maskedinvader]

Why was this down voted ?

[1971genocide]

You make prophet Muhammed sound like some innocent Saint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad

I am a national of a country with 90% muslim while being a minority and to have the freedom to express my opinion.

Islam has bought nothing but hate and insecurity to most people around me. I think its YOUR problem if you are offended if I do not have any respect for your YOUR prophet.

Most american in HN are disgusted by the "pledge of aligence". They would be shocked at the type of behaviour that Islam forces onto its followers.

And Please do not bring up your book and what It says. No ones cares what someone wrote in some book 1000s of year ago. Netwon's laws are not respectable because newton wrote a book but because what he wrote was ACTUALLY something that worked !. Islam's ideas has brought nothing but misery to billions of people now and throught time bought to its followers and the people who had the misfortune of being neighbours to them.

END RANT

<MY USERNAME IS REALLY RELEVANT>

[thewarrior]

From my personal understanding of the issue , the law forbidding depictions of Mohammed applies ONLY TO MUSLIMS. The purpose was that Islam is dead against the idea of idol worship as that was one of the chief causes of disunity and warring among the various tribal factions of Mecca.

So if somebody else makes a cartoon depiction of Mohammed , Islam doesn't have anything to say about that.

Every other religion has been subjected to a lot of ridicule and hate ever since the enlightenment. European societies have accepted that religion should play no role in public life but Islamic societies are only slowly coming around to this idea.

The chief stumbling block to the progress of muslims is the regressive ideologies of the Saudi royals who use their oil billions to export their intolerant nonsense all over the world. It is they who are most interested in strengthening the notion that Islam and Democracy are fundamentally incompatible with each other because otherwise their subjects would question their own authority.

They justify their repression by conflating their authority with the rule of Islam , a trick which their subjects are increasingly realising because of which , they recently declared atheism as a crime equivalent to terrorism.

I live as a Muslim here in India and I'm glad I was born in India and not in some back-asswards country like Saudi Arabia. It is only in a democratic country like India are ALL muslims safe. Try being a Shia in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

We don't have absolute freedom of speech here , but we do have the power to question authority. Until the muslim world wakes up to the necessity of this , they won't enter the 21st century.

I'm a closet atheist but this rising tide of Islamophobia is making life difficult for all of us. Both sides need to work something out or else it's going to be a wild ride.

[rikacomet]

Islam starts at Tauheed, which is to believe in "One God".

As a Muslim I have only 2 things to say to you:

Do you condemn the attacks? I do.

Do you condemn over-the-top caricatures of our Prophet? I do.

[wrongc0ntinent]

>Do you condemn over-the-top caricatures of our Prophet? I do.

I don't. I like the ones of Jesus a little more though.

[rikacomet]

Then we simply have different opinions. Nothing more.

What I meant in my original post is that, out of the millions of ways to be amused, if you can simply write off "insulting prophets of Islam", I your Muslim friend would be very happy.

[mathetic]

As a an atheist, who spent nearly all of his life in a country with 99% Muslim population, I do not understand how people who live in such society and got an education defend the religion.

>> First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam.

First of all, this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Islam, after Christianity, has the bloodiest history we know. The only reason it is the second biggest religion is because it expanded by violent conquers. Even in the off chance that the host is being decent, they imposed so much regulations on non-Muslims that they would end up converting. So this is exactly what Islam is.

>> On the other hand, Religion is a personal affair.

No one who has laid their eyes on Qur'an can say that. It is very explicit about how you need to treat non-Muslims. I don't know where the entire notion of "personal affair" came from.

>> But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much.

Who says so? Who is the divine power that decides on what satire is too much in the absolute scare?

>> Besides the additional fact, that impersonation/impersonification of Prophet Muhammad is highly condemned in Islam.

It is free in the Western world for women not to wear head scarves, drive and have sex with whoever they want, by extension of this logic would it be okay for woman to go to Saudi Arabia and do any of these things?

>> Let us understand each others liberties as well as sensitivities, so that by standing firm together, we will all make a better society, both in France and the World.

No, you don't get it. Objectively France is the better society here. I am half-french and I can criticise France on various issues for many hours but it is insulting to do a comparison between France and a "serious" Muslim country.

[guard-of-terra]

To sum you up, "this is unfortunate but can we still be friends?"

You are not guaranteed that. Nobody has to be friendly to you and reasserting your "feelings" will make people avoid you further.

[rikacomet]

First of all, this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Islam, after Christianity, has the bloodiest history we know. The only reason it is the second biggest religion is because it expanded by violent conquers. Even in the off chance that the host is being decent, they imposed so much regulations on non-Muslims that they would end up converting. So this is exactly what Islam is.

>> Let me put it this way. There are only a couple of hundred thousand/million of people who follow Bahai Religion. Can they have the bloodiest history? Both Christianity and Islam, are among top 3 in terms of people who follow a religion. Of course with nearly half the planet following Islam and Christianity, if people stand up for the right things, they will end up with a bloody history. (In no way I support violence, but what I say is for the sake of the argument).

No one who has laid their eyes on Qur'an can say that. It is very explicit about how you need to treat non-Muslims. I don't know where the entire notion of "personal affair" came from.

>> And I agree with you, Islam specifically says that Non-Muslims are to be treated with respect and dignity. As you say, no man who has laid eyes on Quran can claim that such terrorism is justified.

Who says so? Who is the divine power that decides on what satire is too much in the absolute scare?

>> Who says it is too little? Which Divine power will decide it is too much or too little?

It is free in the Western world for women not to wear head scarves, drive and have sex with whoever they want, by extension of this logic would it be okay for woman to go to Saudi Arabia and do any of these things?

>> Is this in someway becoming, tell me what Islam is? If you have questions, about "What Islam actually says", then go read a genuine English Translation of Quran.

No, you don't get it. Objectively France is the better society here. I am half-french and I can criticise France on various issues for many hours but it is insulting to do a comparison between France and a "serious" Muslim country.

>> You seem to have a delusion about "Serious" Muslim Country. No one can clearly say which country is better. Isn't it peaceful to say all religions are good, all countries are good? Which side are you really on? Of a peaceful mindset or I want to work out my issues about Islam on HN?

[jacquesm]

Your way of quoting the parent here in reverse is highly confusing, it is as if you are now contradicting yourself.

[jacquesm]

> But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much.

Who cares about sensitivities once you cross into satire.

You're effectively arguing that the people that got shot were murdered because 'the level of satire' was too high.

What hurts you is imaginary, killing people is real.

Identifying with a religion to the point that someone insulting your imaginary friend causes a person to commit acts in the real world or to be supportive of such acts is insanity.

If you want a better society then learn that not everybody believes as you do and that the rules governing a religion ONLY applies to those that subscribe to that religion.

[rikacomet]

I'm effectively arguing that Muslims are highly offended because we have the liberty to be so for this case.

Yet that doesn't qualify as enough to hurt someone, and that is why I said both.

[jacquesm]

> I'm effectively arguing that Muslims are highly offended because we have the liberty to be so for this case.

Muslims are highly offended because they choose to identify with their religion in a way that is not considered normal by non-muslims.

> Yet that doesn't qualify as enough to hurt someone, and that is why I said both.

Then stop saying things like 'the satire was perhaps too much'. There will always be people for who the satire was too much so your position would put an end to satire.

In my view the satire was still way too little.

Muslims being offended at stuff like this is bad for Islam as a religion.

[trhway]

>First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted an finger or even wished for those people to get hurt. It is against the moral of our religion to engage in such "eye for an eye" notions.

that just a blatant lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr among the others fights against Meccans that the paedophilic Muhammad led the Muslims into.

[rikacomet]

If you read the content of that wiki yourself (Carefully), or watch the movie "The Message", you will find out yourself that you are wrong.

[kristofferR]

Honestly, and it kinda hurts me to say it, but the belief that blasphemers should be punished is unfortunately a very reasonable interpretation of the Quran. It doesn't take any interpretation at all, it says directly that they should be slain in 33:57-61 for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy

Don't get me wrong, the Bible commands the death penalty for a lot of things too, like working on a Sunday for example.

[rikacomet]

Can I point, that one of the central tenants of Islam is that the only source of Quran is Quran itself. Wikipedia is not a accurate source. But you knew that right?

[kristofferR]

Yeah, of course. All the English translations say the same thing, so it's not a translation issue:

33:57: http://www.internetmosque.net/read/english_translation_of_th...

33:58: http://www.internetmosque.net/read/english_translation_of_th...

33:59: http://www.internetmosque.net/read/english_translation_of_th...

33:60: http://www.internetmosque.net/read/english_translation_of_th...

33:61: http://www.internetmosque.net/read/english_translation_of_th...

[rikacomet]

there you go quoting random things from the internet. This is really not worth my time anymore.

Should I say two things clearly?

1. I condemn the attack on charlie hebdo. Do you?

2. I condemn the over-the-top carricatures of Muhammad. Do you?

Whether your answer is Yes or No, that is your opinion, and this is mine.

For the record, any Quran you find over the internet is most likely to be not genuine.For example, there are only 30 chapters in Quran. so no.33 is just not possible.

[kristofferR]

> For example, there are only 30 chapters in Quran. so no.33 is just not possible.

You're confused: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#Text_and_arrangement

The Quran has 114 chapters called sura's, but the book can also be divided into 30 parts called juz'. The 33th chapter is in the 22th juz' of your book.

[rikacomet]

okay, since you are insisting this much. Let us hear what your copy says? What are you quoting exactly, and what is your point? You seem to claim that you are not rigid in your opinion and are open for debate.

[Yoric]

> Yet, if someone does want to amuse himself or exercise his liberty knowing that it is something that hurts us, we simply have to ignore him. Things should not go further than that.

I have heard this a few time since the attacks on Charlie, and that's very nice to hear. I believe that this was also the point made by Charlie with their first cover on Muhamad (which shows Muhamad saying, roughly « Having stupid followers is harsh. » in reaction to attacks on another newspaper) I wonder how it happens that some Muslems apparently are not aware of this. I thought that, for a Muslim, learning High Arabic and reading Al'Quran was a religious duty. Am I wrong? Or is it that the text of Al'Quran is so complex that it takes a sufficient degree of intelligence to process it? Or is it that there are completely different branches and interpretations in Islam that just happen to share the same name?

By the way, I have read the stories of Nasreddin Hoca, and they really don't sound like satire to me, more like children-level not-religious-at-all fun. Did I miss some specifically satiric ones?

[rikacomet]

No learning Arabic is not compulsory, though reading the Quran is. There are lot of translations of Quran, including in English.

People are not aware as such because of similar reasons, as you may not know the whole of constitution that governs you. It takes time and effort.

Regarding Nasruddin, there are thousands of stories by different authors for all type of audience, if you look a bit more, you will find one with satire.

[anoonmoose]

"both parties were at wrong here"..."it is a kin to playing with their feelings"..."such mishaps happen"..."the level of satire in question here, was perhaps too much".

Honestly, I can't help but come away feeling that what you're saying is that what Hebdo did was so wrong on their part that they should have seen it coming and it is their own fault.

[rikacomet]

did I not condemn the attack, and clearly said that at max they should have been ignored, it was after all only satire.

[jacquesm]

> did I not condemn the attack, and clearly said that at max they should have been ignored, it was after all only satire.

Yes, and if you had left it at that your stance would be commendable. But you chose to significantly dilute your position in what followed.

[rikacomet]

Dear Jacques, your opinion is not the only one that matters, I hope you remember that. No opinion got diluted, nor yours or mine or whatever you meant by that.

I will say this clearly to you, Muslim people have faith in Prophet Muhammad and his teachings. What are they? You neither have complete knowledge nor intention to get it.

It in-fact, includes the same liberties and rights you seem to be are defending at the moment. Yet from the intensity with which you are responding to my replies to other people as well, makes you look like rather driven by emotions here.

If you could only find out for yourself, and spend the proper effort in finding out what Islam really is (from a genuine Quran) you will realize that what you are simply brushing off as another religion is not what you think it is.

Is it possible for you to be wrong about Islam? Yes or No?

[jacquesm]

The Muslims in my cirle make no attempt to apologize for what happened here and are not adding weaselwords to their condemnations. They realize that actions like these make all muslims look bad, even those that would have nothing to do with any of this.

You are unable for some reason to see that you are indirectly blaming the victim here and you are qualifying your condemnation.

[rikacomet]

And you are unable to see that you are simply starting to touch the line of madly imposing your opinion upon others. and Also doing both side of a conversation.

It is very easy to sit at home and be a arm-chair philosopher, and hope that the people in your circle are the all-there-is of the world.

In your opinion it is not possible for Muslims to have sensitivity about certain topics, that they would not like to be toyed around with. Cause that is against the concept of liberty perhaps?

[ptaipale]

It's the "but" part which makes me think you really don't.

[dharmach]

>To say that in other words, to Muslims, a graphical satire is acceptable on anyone except the prophets, which includes Moses, Jesus, Abraham, etc.

Disregarding the past, even today Muslims (most) respect only their religious figures. They respect Moses, Jesus, Abraham since they are considered prophet by Islam. Muslims (again, most) have no respect for other religions like Hinduism, Buddhism (You can see this on many occasions when they talk about Muslim tolerance and mention only Jesus, Moses and Abraham). Why being a Hindu or Buddhist, should I respect your prophet?

[Nursie]

>> First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam.

Pretending Islam is one single thing seems to be part of the problem.

Are the IS fighters following Islam? Were the Hebdo shooters? Or are you?

All would answer yes but clearly are very different, conflicting philosophies.

[rikacomet]

If you can't believe either me or them, then you surely can try to find out what Islam is yourself right? Best help is self help! To start looking, pick up a genuine English Translation of Quran.

[Nursie]

I'm not really interested TBH, had my fill of Christianity when I was a kid and now don't want anything to do with any religion.

I'm just trying to say that someone saying 'this is not true Islam' is about as useful as the Southern Baptists saying Catholics aren't Christian - it doesn't really mean anything, there is no 'one true way' to any of this stuff.

Mostly because gods are a fantasy.

[thret]

Or you could read the following chapter from The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. It is quite entertaining.

http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap50.htm