[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.