
Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad - dnetesn
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/13/charlie-hebdo-cover-magazine-prophet-muhammad
======
chroma
The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be
done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that
statement, remember The Book of Mormon. (The play, not the actual book.) Could
you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play
about Islam? Could you imagine them calling it _The Qur 'an_ to Google-bomb
the original? Even if they disregarded their own safety, dozens of
organizations would do their best to stop it. Venue owners wouldn't take the
risk. Insurers wouldn't accept standard policies. Audience turnout would be
lower, fearing attacks. And yet, both religions are similar in their
ridiculousness. One just happens to encourage less violence in its hosts.

For a little while, we'll all pile-on the cartoon Muhammad bandwagon in show
of support. But after this dies down, who will be the first to step forward
with some new blasphemous ridicule? Who will single themselves out, risking
their life, their family, their friends?

Whoever does so will certainly be braver than me.

~~~
replax
While what you said is probably true for obvious reasons, also remember that
those cartoons probably offended around 1.5bn people. Seeing that three people
decided to react violently after several years of the paper being put out
weekly, it is fairly safe to say that this could be described as a clash of
the extreme extremists (of whom there are very few).

I am pretty sure the outrage against anti-Semitic jokes would be ridiculous,
too (which CH spoke out against and fired over).

I am not defending anybody here, just wanted to describe a slightly different
point of view. Obviously it is CH's own choice to put out and condone whatever
they want and that choice should be granted.

~~~
Shivetya
could have offended, if they even saw them. The issue is, how much offense was
their really. If Islam is like any other religion there is a significant
number who just don't care. They don't want to be bothered.

What we have here is a bunch of extremist trying to incite violence against
their faith in order to create more recruits by demonstrating oppression. It
does not matter that their actions caused it, it only matters it exists.

Used to be you could isolate a country to make them come around, restrict
access to trade and banking. With these groups your going to have to make sure
they have no home. keep them on the move so much they cannot get established.
It won't be easy or quick, but the alternative is allowing them a beachhead
and being subject to their whims

~~~
briandear
CH only printed about 30,000 copies a week. It was just a convenient proxy. I
actually live in France and I've never read CH. However, tomorrow morning when
the new issue hits the newsstands, I will be first in line. I'm buying the
paper not because I care about the content, but because I care about the
writers' ability to express their ideas freely and without fear of being shot
in the face.

------
tomp
> Warning: this article contains the image of the magazine cover, which some
> may find offensive.

It's the first time I've seen something like this on Guardian; I don't even
remember it on articles discussing rape, murder or such, which is usually
where "trigger warning" applies.

Personally, I find such trigger warnings, and especially "you might be
offended" warnings, totally ridiculous. What about me? I find such warnings an
insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of people's personal
responsibility, where is my warning?

~~~
philh
> I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of
> people's personal responsibility

How so? If an article says "trigger warning: (rape/Mohammed/spiders/flashing
lights)", then people who don't want to be exposed to those things (e.g. due
to PTSD, religion, phobias, epilepsy - or simply because it upsets them and
they don't particularly want to be upset right now) can choose not to read it.

How does it erode someone's personal responsibility to give them the
information they need to make that choice?

> where is my warning?

If there's a largish number of people for whom "trigger warning: trigger
warnings" would actually make life less stressful, then I'd endorse people
including that warning.

I don't think that population is very large. For that matter, I don't think it
includes you.

~~~
belorn
> If there's a largish number of people for whom ... make life less
> stressful...

This kind of thinking, that society should accommodate a populations likes and
dislikes, is why we get groups that want to forbid Mohammad cartoons and
others in the same country that want to forbid religious clothes like Burqa.
No matter the combination, forbid one, forbid both or neither, you will always
end up with one or both groups being offended and wanting government to
intervene.

The alternative as I see it is to not acknowledge the problem, making it a
point that what ever people like or dislike is their own problem.

~~~
jdimov
I couldn't agree more! Socialism and equality are among THE most dis-
empowering and evil ideas to come out of humanity. Unfortunately, these ideas
have taken over reason so completely that they are now universally hailed as
virtues.

------
ThePhysicist
I'm sure the Wednesday issue will sell out in no time, despite its edition of
3 million, and become a "collector's piece" for those opposing terrorism and
violence (as well as for those who want to resell it on Ebay for a profit ;)).

I really admire the courage of the Charlie Hebdo staff, who, just one week
after the attack, publish a new issue of their journal.

For me, the main problem now is how we deal with the political consequences of
this tragedy: Many politicians already bring themselves in position to create
new laws that will allow them even more wiretapping and surveillance. British
prime minister David Cameron was arguably one of the first here, as in his
recent speech he even puts in question the right of anyone (terrorists
included) to communicate in private [1]. Other politicians from (mostly)
right-wing parties all over Europe are seizing this opportunity as well and
demand stricter anti-terror laws and more government surveillance. I think we
need to be very watchful now if we don't wanna loose even more of our
democratic freedoms for the sake (or the illusion) of more security.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/david-
cameron...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/david-cameron-
pledges-anti-terror-law-internet-paris-attacks-nick-clegg)

~~~
dtf
Here's a great interview with Luz, whose signature you can see on the cover
drawing. The interesting thing is that Charlie was at heart an iconoclastic
magazine, and yet ironically has now become an icon of free speech - something
the staff aren't particularly happy about.

[http://www.lesinrocks.com/2015/01/10/actualite/luz-eyes-
us-w...](http://www.lesinrocks.com/2015/01/10/actualite/luz-eyes-us-weve-
become-symbol-11545347/)

~~~
apricot
That interview should be read by everyone who cares about the attack on
Charlie Hebdo and subsequent "Je suis Charlie" worldwide movement. Many
people, for all kinds of reasons (many good) are trying to make Charlie Hebdo
into what it is not, and never will be, some kind of reluctant messiah of free
speech.

------
neals
I used to think society would, at some point, grow up and leave religion
behind.

But lately, it just feels like a far 'lower' form of religion is just taking
over. I think that western christianity has made some big strides. For
example, by leaving all the violence behind.

Now the violent ones are winning. This makes me sad for the future of Europe.

~~~
jordanpg
Coverage of these events, with or without anti-Muslim sentiment, almost never
takes the point of view that it is the fact that people are brought up to
_really believe_ that there are invisible, magic beings in the ether who care
about the state of affairs on earth that is at least in part the root cause
here.

And that is a terrible shame because not drawing attention to that fact is a
tacit endorsement of extremist beliefs, as Harris, Hitchens, et al. have
pointed out many times. You can't have it both ways. You either believe there
are invisible, magic beings or you don't. There is no "tolerance" in between.
If you think they exist, then you can hardly be surprised when someone takes
this ludicrous proposition and bends it to their own political, social, or
economic goals -- because you can bend it any way you want, by definition,
since it's all made up.

I don't think it is at all obvious that if there were not implicit endorsement
of religious beliefs of all kind all over earth, that it wasn't OK for grown-
ups to walk around saying they _actually believe_ this nonsense, that this
violence would manifest itself in some other way. It's important to at least
consider the possibility that religion itself is the problem here.

~~~
theorique
_You can 't have it both ways. You either believe there are invisible, magic
beings or you don't._

Well, yes and no. A lot of people (most?) kinda-sorta believe, but have doubts
about the weirdness of some of the more unlikely and/or extreme beliefs. The
vast people don't have enough faith to strap on a suicide vest or behead
someone, even in Islam.

For most "believers", religion is a consolation when you think about Grandma
in heaven or a way to be socially connected to your community.

~~~
jordanpg
This is exactly the sort of wishy-washy point of view that is as culpable as
the extremist one.

Here is a fact: there is no reason -- none -- to think that there exists an
invisible, magic being in the sky that concerns itself with things going on
here on earth.

Unfortunately, for reasons that are hard for me to understand, it has become
_pro forma_ to pretend that it's just fine if adults talk and act as if it is,
even if they only "kinda-sorta" believe it.

Well I say that it's time to start saying out loud that it's not fine, and
that the judgement of anyone who says they believe it in any sense at all
might need to be questioned. Just like you would question the judgement of
someone who "kinda-sorta" believed anything that's obviously nonsense, like
astrology or numerology or fairy tales.

And the reason that it's _important_ to question the judgement of people who
believe things that are obviously false is because they might have guns, and
they might decide that it's time for someone to be shot in the head because
they have offended their magic deity in the sky. And there are worse
possibilities that I don't need to enumerate here.

These absurd, magical points of view won't go away until they are laughed out
of the room, so let's start. Comfort and community don't trump safety.

~~~
slavak
> Unfortunately, for reasons that are hard for me to understand, it has become
> pro forma to pretend that it's just fine if adults talk and act as if it is,
> even if they only "kinda-sorta" believe it.

We act like it's just fine to believe in make-belief things because our
society is built upon the concept that it is; you're free to believe in
anything you like, be it a God, Santa Claus, or pixie-dust unicorns. Our
society functions as well as it does because of the presumption that you're
free to think and feel whatever you like. Otherwise, trying to prevent people
from believing in magical sky fairies quickly transforms into preventing them
from believing in forms of government other than democracy, to creation
theories other than the big bang, to the political ideologies of any party
other than the one in power- and the progress and betterment of society in all
areas grinds to a halt.

We've built a society predicated on the notion that you can't prevent people
from having stupid ideas without preventing them from having brilliant ones as
well- and it's proven an overall good approach so far.

The problem isn't with ideas, it's with the way you apply those ideas to your
behavior in the physical world. You're free to believe in unicorns as long as
you don't try to stab an aluminium horn into a horse's snout in an attempt to
coax them out of hiding, just as you're free to believe in Jesus as long as
you don't use it to force me to denounce the teachings of Buddha.

You're free to mock silly ideas people have -- including the concept of an
omnipotent deity, if you find that idea silly; but the reason we pretend it's
fine for those people to _hold_ those ideas is because it IS.

~~~
jordanpg
I agree that it's "fine." I wasn't questioning the right to hold any
particular view. I'm just arguing that it would be better if we held belief in
fairy tales and belief in traditional god(s) to the same standard.

It would be disingenuous to say that you would be willing to hand over the
keys to a nuclear reactor or have brain surgery performed by a person who
claims to genuinely believe in fairy tales, without pause. Religion should be
no different. It is equally ludicrous, no more, no less.

My point is that religion is held to a very different standard, in a
sociological sense.

------
ThomPete
Charlie Hebdos fight is not a fight for freedom of expression but against
self-censorship. I think a lot media and politicians forget that.

We all deal with self-censorship every day as we live amongst each other. Some
people have more courage than others and dare take it "behind enemy lines"
where other rules apply.

Freedom of expression is a legal right to express yourself without fearing
those in power is going to shut you down or prosecute you. We mostly have that
and the only people who can threaten it is the politicians which unfortunately
is exactly what some of them are going to do.

We already see the first reactions like this
[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/news/whatsapp-and-snapchat-could-be-banned-under-new-surveillance-
plans-9973035.html)

And all over Europe there are people taking advantage of the situation and
proposing laws that will actually threaten freedom of expression.

~~~
geographomics
There are already plenty of laws in France and most (perhaps all) other
countries that restrict freedom of speech.

Examples of censured expression include but are not limited to: Holocaust
denial, hate speech, some forms of pornography, leaking state secrets,
harassing communication, copyright infringement, libel and slander.

I don't think that freedom of expression is absolutely permitted anywhere.
There are so many exceptions to it - many of which are necessary for a
cohesive society - that it's pretty much an invalid concept in real terms.

~~~
ThomPete
I agree. My primary point is just that it's not "the others" that threaten our
freedom of expression its ourselves.

~~~
geographomics
My apologies, I misread your comment as saying that freedom of expression was
only just beginning to be under threat. I do agree with your primary point.

------
lovelearning
I'm rather curious why this depiction is considered to be that of the prophet
Muhammad. Is it said so somewhere in their paper, or do we all just accept
whatever interpretation is handed down to us by the fundamentalists?

~~~
infruset
Because the character is depicted similarly as in a previous cartoon by the
same cartoonist:
[https://i.imgur.com/Lm4p71F.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Lm4p71F.jpg)

I don't get why you're being downvoted though. Have an upvote.

~~~
lovelearning
Thank you for the upvote. If the downvotes were due to religious reasons, then
I have to admit it is rather sad to see them on HN. On the other hand, if they
were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them.

From the link and history of the cartoons, I've reached the rather odd
conclusion that _anyone_ named "Mahomet" or "Muhammad" in a cartoon is
automatically assumed to be the prophet Muhammad.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them_

You were just asking an earnest question. What's actually stupid is the
downvote feature itself. Upvotes can help promote good content and flags can
call attention to inappropriate or problematic content. Likewise, comments can
be used to express disagreement.

So, what's the purpose of downvotes? Are we in preschool?

~~~
corin_
If users should be trusted to push comments up, then why _not_ down also? A
down vote doesn't have to mean "this comment should not be on HN", it can be
"I disagree with this comment" or "I think this comment should be lower down".

~~~
jacquesm
> I think this comment should be lower down

You actually get _two_ downvotes: if you think a comment should be lower down
you can (but shouldn't) upvote all the other comments _and_ downvote the one
you think should be lower.

Downvotes are an optimization.

~~~
corin_
Good point - and I think while you're right in saying "but you shouldn't"
there are exceptions. I've done this a couple of times, only if two users made
the exact same point, one a while before another. Maybe you'd argue I
shouldn't have upvoted one and downvoted another as unfair karma wise to the
later poster, but my decision to do so was based on improving where the
comments are positioned (readers don't need to see the same view twice high
up), not based on rewarding or punishing users.

------
Udik
Yesterday the Guardian published the best opinion I've read so far about
satire, Charlie Hebdo, the terrorist attacks and our reaction to them. And
it's a short comic strip by the cartoonist Joe Sacco:
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-
interactive/2015/jan/09/...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-
interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks)

~~~
mxfh
While I respect Secco and his work as well it's also wrong and out of context
in some regards.

Ruben Bolling:
[http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2015/01/in-...](http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2015/01/in-
non-satirical-defense-of-charlie-hebdo.html)

~~~
jholman
I'd never heard of CH a week ago, and Bolling's interpretation of CH's
cartooning may be more accurate than Secco's, and it was an interesting
perspective.

But I think that Bolling's conclusions are wrong, except perhaps when he
rebuts Secco's use of the word "vapid".

Bolling says that the only reasonable reaction to the murders is to defend
free speech. No. Defending free speech is necessary, but it's not at all clear
that it's sufficient. Freedom of the press isn't the only issue here.

There are also issues of what to do about violence/security, what to do about
racism, what to do about freedom of religion, etc. Those issues aren't any
more important post-murder, but they were important before and they still are,
and this is an opportunity to put some eyes on them.

I don't interpret Sacco's piece as saying "CH is unworthy of our defense". I
interpret it as saying "Let's defend CH, but also notice that they were
missing the point, here's the point". Bolling argues that CH wasn't missing
the point. But Sacco's proposal for where our greatest attention should lie is
still a good proposal.

~~~
jules
What exactly do you see as Sacco's proposal? Maybe it's over my head, but as
far as I can see his comic basically says that in response to the murders we
should focus on not offending muslims.

~~~
jholman
I don't see anything in Sacco that says "we should not offend". I think
Sacco's piece as a whole says three things, and I think that Bolling agrees
with the first, rebuts the second, and ignores the third. From the tone of
your question, I infer that you're asking me about that "third", but I'll just
get the first two out of the way first.

First: Of course we should defend free speech! (Okay, good, glad we got that
out of the way. We all agree, yay.)

Second: CH is "tweaking the nose of muslims", and that's "vapid". (Bolling
says that's not what CH is doing. I have no idea if Bolling is correct, but it
seems plausible. So let's assume Bolling has rebutted Sacco on this.)

Third:

Thinking critically about geopolitics would be more interesting and
constructive than "tweaking .. noses". There might be geopolitical and
sociological reasons why there exist so many more Muslim-affiliated suicide
bombers than there are first-world/modern/white/Christian/etc suicide bombers.

Maybe the issue isn't that Islam teaches violence. I mean, there are plenty of
exhortations to violence in Christian history, in Western history, in
"modernity". And my understanding is that much of the Quran and the Hadith is
calls to peace and non-violence. So what's the deal? Maybe the issue is that
there's a lot of inequality in the world (and the inequality is actively
pursued by the empowered, not just an accident), and this breeds resentment,
and breeds tribal thinking, and Muslims as a group have relatively little
overlap with the empowered class (House of Saud notwithstanding). Maybe that
sort of us-vs-the-West tribal thinking is the only source of empowerment that
certain people can find in their lives, and some tiny fraction of them are
borderline-insane young men who jump over the cliff into insanity and strap on
vests. And if that's all true, sure it's easy and correct to say "no matter
what their excuse, suicide bombing is evil". Fine, I agree. So what? Given the
choice between labelling a past murderer as "evil", or preventing a future
murder, which is more important to you?

If we agree that violence and terrorism are a problem to which we'd like a
solution, what forms of solution can you imagine? Can we realistically
eradicate a religion? Alternately, can we realistically eradicate the spectrum
of extremism within a religion? How about can we build a police state that
will actually prevent this kind of thing, and if we can should we? Or can we
just wall off all the crazies and not let them into our countries, and if we
can, should we (with the collateral effect of maybe walling some innocents in
with the crazies)? Personally I think the answer to all four of those is a
very obvious "No". So do we have an alternative? I don't know if an
alternative exists, but I suggest that if it does exist, then reducing
inequality seems likely to be a prerequisite.

The last two paragraphs of mine are an attempt to spell out the last two
panels of Sacco's strip. "We can try to think about why the world is the way
it is, and what it is about Muslims in this time and place that makes them
unable to laugh off a mere image. And if we answer 'because something is
deeply wrong with them' \- certainly something was deeply wrong with the
killers - then let us drive them from their homes and into the sea. For that
is going to be far easier than sorting out how we fit in each other's world".

So, in summary, Sacco's third point as I see it: Yeah yeah we all agree in
free speech, but maybe if we stop foaming at the mouth about how evil a group
is, and cultivate some empathy, we can find a solution that doesn't amount to
genocide.

On a personal note, I find it very hard to have empathy with religious people
of any stripe. But I am well aware that my position on religion makes me a
very very tiny minority.

------
jpgvm
It takes a great deal to stand up against the advance of political correctness
on free speech. Other countries haven't nearly done as well as France.

At the end of the day the situation was tragic but the defence of free speech
against prevailing winds is incredibly important.

As for religious extremism... I don't think we will see an end until
enlightenment spreads and religion fades into historic irrelevancy.

This is happening faster than people think, especially religious people as
they can't see out of their bubble. At least here in Australia the vast
majority of people may "identify" as Christian but they don't actually
practice any semblance of faith. That being said the Christian lobby parties
still have an unreasonably large amount of sway due to being a very vocal
minority that leverages this weak "identity" of Australians to further their
conservative agenda.

Nevertheless there is less and less children becoming indoctrinated into this
nonsense and gaining access to real information sooner through the Internet
that by the end of my lifetime I expect religion (in it's current form) in
developed countries to be all but extinct.

I think extremism will still be around, it will just be over more real issues
and less fairy tale beliefs.

~~~
gws
I don't think that the religion is the issue, I think that desperate people
with desperate lives will always find something irrational to fill their life
with and kill for.

As an example on a smaller scale (smaller as in less desperate) in Italy we
have people whose life revolves around going to the stadium on Sunday to watch
their football team and getting into fights with the fans of the opponent
team. That's the only thing that keeps their life together. And they are ready
to kill other teams' fans, we have people killed every year.

Likewise we have extreme right or extreme left groups who fight and kill each
other... desperate people filling their life.

Religion, political faith, football team, doesn't really matter, the issue is
the people, not the ideas.

~~~
jpgvm
True, which is why I went to to explain that I don't think all extremism would
go away - just religious extremism.

I just think it's harder to incite organised extreme violence without some
highly charged agenda and removing religion goes a long way to making our
world a better place.

------
bane
The meaning of satire has lost its edge. People today think satire = political
humor, but satire is supposed to be daring, edgy, and in its highest form be:

a) virtually indistinguishable from reality

b) expose the author to real danger and reprisal

c) nearly impossible to reverse on the satirist

Satire has very often been very dangerous to produce, and I think we're being
reminded of this right now. It's why satirists take their work so seriously,
because it exposes malformed thinking by people who've built their power bases
on such thoughts.

In my opinion satire is one of the highest forms of free speech and one of the
most powerful tools available for parsing people capable of rational thought
and those who aren't.

It's a kind of _gom jabbar_ test and is not for the faint of heart. It's
almost a true battle of the pen vs. the sword.

------
nahiluhmot
I'm nervous about the response that these attacks will conjure from the far
right. There have already been a good deal of attempts on the lives of
innocent Muslims [1] since the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and I find it very
concerning that I have heard none of this from the national/international news
media. Would these not as well be considered acts of terrorism? Why not report
on them? Doing so would seem to unfairly advance the anti-Islam sentiment in
France by effectively silencing the acts of terrorism from non-Muslims.

[1] [http://mic.com/articles/108206/how-bad-is-france-s-anti-
musl...](http://mic.com/articles/108206/how-bad-is-france-s-anti-muslim-
backlash-to-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-check-this-map)

~~~
esaym
How do you know those attacks were done by the 'right'? What you have done is
no different than people saying all "Muslims are terrorists".. Yet you get
upvotes.

People that harm people have one thing in common. It is not the 'right' or
religion. They are loony and mis-guided, and have their priorities severely
out of place. Plain and simple.

Such polarization will never lead to any kind of peace.

~~~
nahiluhmot
That's a fair point, the article I quoted does not mention if these people
were on the 'right' or not. However, by saying "far right", I was trying to
imply that extremists from that side would carry out acts on Muslims, much
like extremist Muslims attacking the Hebdo.

I assumed these attacks would come from the right because of a culture of
Islamophobia that I've seen on places like Fox news, which I consider to be a
far right media outlet. For example:

[http://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7533159/fox-news-pirro-
rant](http://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7533159/fox-news-pirro-rant)
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims-
are...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims-are-evil-
lets-kill-them-all-us-tv-commentator-erik-rush-provokes-furious-reaction-with-
boston-bombing-twitter-rants-8575176.html)
[http://www.salon.com/2014/08/20/foxs_andrea_tantaros_you_sol...](http://www.salon.com/2014/08/20/foxs_andrea_tantaros_you_solve_it_with_a_bullet_to_the_head/)

------
higherpurpose
If only the governments wouldn't use this "attack on free speech" to umm...
_restrict free speech_. If the terrorists change your way of life, they've
won. I thought the _whole point_ of the march was to say that "We are not
afraid! And we'll continue to be just as free as ever! Your violence will not
scare us!" \- and so on.

But nope. Apparently what it meant is that we need more censorship _and_ self-
censorship caused by increased and more intrusive mass surveillance:

[http://www.zdnet.com/article/europes-answer-to-terror-
attack...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/europes-answer-to-terror-attacks-on-
free-speech-is-to-double-down-on-internet-censorship/)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-it-means-to-
stan...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-it-means-to-stand-with-
charlie-hebdo/2015/01/08/ab416214-96e8-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html)

If the alternative to once in a while terrorist attacks is turning every
democracy into Russia or China, then I'd rather stick with the risk of
terrorism.

------
xianshou
As the article points out, this is essentially the only viable move for
Charlie Hebdo. To have so often depicted Muhammad in the past, have most of
their staff killed for it, become the focus of a worldwide movement that
promises not to be intimidated or cowed by terrorism, and then not publish
Muhammad in the next issue? An admission of complete defeat.

That said, bravo.

------
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](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/](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.

~~~
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.

~~~
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.

------
quonn
Much better than expected: It's defiance and almost turning the other cheek at
the same time.

~~~
mcv
It's forgiveness and turning the other cheek. It's surprisingly Christian for
such an anti-religious magazine.

Also check out the beautiful cover they had after the 2011 firebombing:
[http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/static/world/charlie_...](http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/static/world/charlie_hebdo/kissing_hebdo.jpg)

------
nailer
Edit: actually this is wrong: the Guardian and Independent (left) have
published, Sun, Times Telegraph and Mail (right) have not.

Original: it's also worth noting that all the UK newspapers, from both sides
of politics, have republished the relevant cover.

------
Guthur
The article and many peoples reaction comes across as if these two
'individuals' actually represented the Muslim community. This is quite
obviously not the case if it is looked at objectively.

And to say that somehow the Muslim community must bear responsibility for the
individuals actions is like saying that all the people of France must bear
responsibility for every wrong committed in their neighbourhood, or their
city, or by their government, were those wrongs not commit by French men and
women.

~~~
matthewmacleod
No, it really doesn't come across as that.

------
jacquesm
Radical murderous bastards with long toes will use any excuse to ply their
trade whether they're anti-abortionists or Islamists doesn't really matter.

What _does_ matter is that:

\- this will rub off negatively on all those in Islam that don't distance
themselves unconditionally from actions like these

\- that it will be used to erode the rights and freedoms of people that had
nothing to do with these attacks by railroading laws against the public
interest while the anger and the fear are at high tide

\- that actions like these make people of _all_ religions look bad, especially
those who are more fanatical about their religion.

On the whole, everybody loses.

If your imaginary friend can't be made fun of or you'll flip then you should
see a shrink, and if you think there was anything 'ok' about these murders
then I'd invite you to join in.

Other than that this is a police matter and politicians trying to use this to
push their agenda should be voted out of office by all those who today think
they too are 'Charlie'.

------
big_astrocyte
It is not about Islam but about a school of thought which is not only 100%
certain in its beliefs (Quran is the literal word of God) but also likes to
impose it on others under the banner of "don't hurt our feelings". I've seen
examples coming from Budhism (Burma-Sri Lanka), Hinduism (India), Sikhism
(India), Christianity (UK-middle age Europe-African countries). People from
even non-islamic religions regularly kill each other for hurting 'religious
feelings'.

When someone 'hurts' your religious sentiments, you can't be sure whether it
was done deliberately or for deeper reasons. I can see deep reasons in why
those cartoons were published.

Anyone against free expression is kinda against science itself. Certain
religions will never grow (the word of god is limited to Quran/Bible/Whatever)
but science will keep growing. What happens when science ends up infringing on
religious feelings? Will we be allowed to publish potential treatment for HIV
found in a pig's liver in a sharia state? Even saying that "Charlie Hebdo" did
something wrong is taking a step towards a world where science starts becoming
bound. This sentiment can easily go out of hand in a matter of 100 years. A
perfect example would be Pakistan. A supposedly liberal place 100 years ago
ended up forcing its only nobel prize winning physicist into exile, defacing
his grave and making sure more awesome scientists are not created. Because
apparently, Dr. Abdus Salam (the nobel laureate) wasn't Muslim enough!! I
wouldn't take even one step towards intolerance for the sake of our great-
great grandchildren.

------
rauljara
I found it quite moving that the theme of the cover was forgiveness. Fighting
extremist hate with more hate has a best case of only shifting which people
suffer because it, and a worse case that is truly horrible to contemplate.

I know saying you forgive your attackers will almost certainly not make the
world a better place. But there were so many reactions that could have added
to the fire. It's very hopeful to see people struggling to break the cycle
even in the face of such loss.

~~~
ca98am79
I agree with you almost completely - except I do think that forgiveness
definitely will and does make the world a better place. It just did - you and
I and countless other people have been moved and inspired by this gesture of
forgiveness. How can that not make the world better?

If they had instead requested vengeance - it would continue the cycle of
misery, hate and destruction.

------
Yetanfou
One thing I fail to understand is the general reaction - or, rather, the
absence of such - of 'Islamic authorities' on this and other acts of violence
in the name of their religion. There are many complaints about those who point
fingers at all Muslims when these things happen, something which would be
easily defused by a fatwa (a legal opinion) from some high-placed muftis
declaring such acts as 'haram' \- sinful. I do not know enough about Islam to
know whether there is something resembling 'excommunication' in the Roman
Catholic church, but if there is it would make sense to apply it to those who
commit such acts of violence. If the perpetrators can no longer claim to be
defending their religion they might start to realise that their acts of
violence are criminal acts, pure and simple, without any religious excuse.

Such a fatwa - or series of fatwas, as there are many currents in Islam -
would take away the cause for the general blame which is aimed at Muslims when
atrocities are performed in name of their religion.

------
resonantcore
It's difficult to be surprised by this turn of events.

It's in poor taste, in one sense, but overall it's the only appropriate
response that a satirist magazine could take in the wake of this tragedy.

Followers of Islam the whole world over will continue to ignore these
publications nonviolently, though a few extremists might be further
radicalized by this decision.

Meanwhile, David Cameron is trying to outlaw cryptography after these attacks.
Surely that deserves more of our attention right now?

------
gadders
We're allowed to talk about this now? I thought all the stories on it were
getting flagged off the front page?

------
copsarebastards
These events have really solidified an idea for me that I've been mulling for
a while: I don't think I'm in favor of religion as a protected class[1].

Islam believes in inerrancy of the Qur'an. The Qur'an encourages violence. The
faces of organized Islam in the west engage in apologetics and argue that this
isn't so, but anyone can read this for themselves. Claiming that the Qur'an
doesn't encourage violence is just doublethink. Most Muslims believe that the
Qur'an espouses peace, only because they haven't read it. But if they actually
do read it and realize it espouses violence, then they are faced with a
choice: either give up the idea that the Qur'an is inerrant, or begin
spreading Islam through violence. All it takes to turn a peaceful Muslim into
a violent Muslim is that they actually read and understand their holy book.

Even peaceful Muslims aren't great. Even in its milder incarnations, Islam is
sexist and hostile to science.

The interests of Islam are not aligned with my interests. They are, in fact,
directly opposed to my interests.

I believe that one of the most powerful ways in which I can act politically is
through economics. There is a diner in my town which is well-known for its
owners being racist. I don't go there, because I don't want to support racists
monetarily. Similarly, I wouldn't hire a person who made racist comments. I
believe that there should be significant repercussions for that kind of
behavior.

Likewise, I don't want to go to Muslim businesses or hire Muslims. Islam is
every bit as harmful as racism, and I believe that there should be significant
repercussions for that behavior.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class)

------
RRRA
I'm offended by the fact that there is a warning at the top of this page...

Shouldn't it be there all the time then?

How about, we don't believe in anything anymore, or we don't have any
integrity?

------
mknits
My one and only question: How can a religion be based mostly on one book?
Surely the book isn't wikipedia or google.

This question applies to Christians, Muslims and Jews.

------
TIJ
Read news about the biggest gathering in paris ever as a tribute to the
legendary cartoonist, terrorists are failing in their objectives.

~~~
kbart
Nope. Terrorist have won again. The aim of Islam terrorism is not to cause
direct damage, but to install fear in all of us and reduce our
freedom/democracy. Here's one of example that's relevant to people here on HN:

"In wake of Paris shootings, Prime Minister wants to ban encryptions that
government can't read in extreme situations"

[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/news/whatsapp-and-snapchat-could-be-banned-under-new-surveillance-
plans-9973035.html)

------
jayess
Is there anyone in France willing to take a paypal payment to buy me a couple
of copies and mail them to the USA?

~~~
simias
I've heard that this issue will be translated in something like 16 languages,
I would be surprised if it wasn't officially distributed abroad, especially in
the USA.

------
ca98am79
Offering forgiveness in the face of such brutality is very powerful and
meaningful to me. It is moving and inspiring. When something so brutal like
this happens, I can get depressed and not understand. It is easy to feel a lot
of anger about it.

But then in the face of this brutality, when their co-workers and friends were
murdered in cold blood, to offer forgiveness - it really does a lot to restore
my faith in humanity.

------
Shivetya
How do we obtain a copy in the US? Anyone have a good source?

------
Killah911
A very interesting cover. I was thinking about drawing a cartoon: a bunch of
Muslims sitting around saying "I hate freedom soo much!..."

Note this wouldn't be satirizing Muslims, but rather the fact that we rush to
draw these comical worldviews even in the face of such tragedies.

Let's just label it Radical Islam & call anyone that doesn't agree with our
definition of "values" a Radical. The Islamic world is in deep shit, not
necessarily because of the west. Meaningful change often isnt even a remote
possibility in many of these places. The "extremists" are just another group
vying for power and legitimacy in a dystopian Muslim world & something like
Charlie Hebdo is a PR opportunity.

Religious injunctions aside, what makes criticizing Islam is not just the
beliefs that some hold. What makes it dangerous is you're likely painting a
target on your back. They won't take on the U.S. army, or the seriously
oppressive armies of dictatorships. A journalist, celebrity etc is a great
opportunity.

It's not fucking about free speech, unless you believe in a comical worldview
where you depict what doesn't match your worldview as I did earlier. The
cartoons are funny. I'm all for freedom of speech. But our principles don't
make ground realties any different. We should think of the fact that at least
we have the luxury of having principles.

In principle, nobody should rob me while I'm going walking down the street.
But it's a whole different thing if it's in a rough neighborhood & I'm
standing out like a sore thumb.

What happenned was wrong, and my heart goes out to all who are directly
involved. And I mean that (A close family friend was recently shot by a
deranged lunatic on a shooting spree, leaving him permanently disabled). The
violence is senseless and irrational.

Let us them not rationalize it away with a little bias thrown the other way.
It's not what I expect on HN. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking it was
about freedom of speech. Yes, it has caused fear. Which is why I thought the
cover was interesting. It's saying to us: we are not afraid & it's not hurling
hate back with a message of forgiveness, which is atypical in the aftermath of
a terrorist attack.

Surprisingly Charlie Hebdo's cover is more thoughtful & less comical than the
inane chatter of people saying "why do they hate us". And that is Brilliant.
Alas this attempt at communication is probably lost on a majority of the
Muslim world. In truth, everyone wants freedom. Let's take a second to think
about what's really at play here.

For the perpetrators of these acts like to win, it requires us to becomes
irrational & start becoming hateful and shortsighted. Let's not give in to
that

------
icebraining
_Speaking on Today, [Omer el-Hamdoon, president of the Muslim Association of
Britain] said causing offence “just for the purpose of offending” was not
freedom of speech._

Distancing yourself from the extremists [FAIL]

~~~
Guthur
Just because someone doesn't take your side in debate does not necessarily
mean they took some other non affiliated point of view.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
One could argue that he did, indirectly. Freedom of speech means exactly that
- the freedom to say whatever you want, within the margins allowed by the law,
regardless of how it could be perceived by some specific group of people.
Somebody is always going to be offended, I think el-Hamdoon missed the whole
point.

What he could have said instead, but didn't, is this: "While I find the cover
disgusting, freedom of speech protects their right to publish this, and they
should not fear for their lives because of it."

~~~
sfjailbird
> _Freedom of speech means exactly that - the freedom to say whatever you want
> ... regardless of how it could be perceived by some specific group of
> people_

No. You can't publish porn freely. Why? Because some people find it offensive.
It's not that simple.

~~~
icebraining
Or maybe it is. What makes you uncritically accept those restrictions as not
violating free speech? Just because the countries that impose them happen to
claim they support free speech?

------
ziggrat
Y HN become political?

------
lxc
The face and turban is shaped like a penis

------
lxc
Test

