The new Charlie Hebdo cover

novella1186 · January 2015

Can I broach a very touchy subject here?

The new issue of Charlie Hebdo is being released-- the first one since the attack last week-- and the cover depicts the prophet Muhammad with a sign that says "Je suis Charlie" aka "I am Charlie." [I'm not going to post a picture of it here because that would be hypocritical to the point I'm trying to make]. Authorities are speculating that part of why the offices got attacked is because they've depicted the prophet in the past, sometimes in ways that seem to mock him. So they decided to put him on the cover as an act of defiance.

At first I thought, "Good. No one should ever bow down to terrorists." But then I took a minute and re-thought that. Depicting Muhammad isn't only offensive to extremists. It's offensive to almost ALL Muslims, especially Sunni. In fact I think the only area where it isn't seen as so extremely offensive is in Iran with Shi'ite Muslims (based on what I've read), but overall it's unacceptable in any Muslim group/culture/country. So now I'm not really sure how I feel about their choice for the cover.

I always try to put myself in someone else's shoes with this. If there was a Jewish extremist who did something absolutely horrific and terrible, so a magazine published a cover in reaction to that and the cover depicted something that was known to be horribly offensive to ALL JEWS, I would be really hurt by that. I would be scared. Especially if it was re-published many many times and celebrated all over the world. I don't think a terrible act by 2 extremists justifies offending an entire religious group. There are millions of peaceful Muslims in the world that have no affiliation whatsoever with any attacks but who do believe that it's not ok to depict Muhammad.

On the other side, though, the magazine wants to exercise their freedom and their right to have a voice, and they want to show that they won't cower in fear. I understand that. They absolutely should be able to print what they want without having staff members be executed in cold blood. What happened is so awful.

But what good does it do to offend and further alienate ALL Muslims? And how far is it going to go? I really can find reasons to support/sympathize with both sides of the coin.

What are your thoughts? Anyone care to weigh in on this?

PrettyGirlLost · January 2015

There "are no Koranic prohibitions against depictions of the Prophet Muhammad" according to religious scholar Reza Asla: http://www.npr.org/2015/01/10/376381089/depictions-of-muhammad-arent-explicity-forbidden-says-scholar

"It's certainly a cultural taboo, but that taboo arose organically and through a long period of time, which is why, precisely as you say, the history of Islam teems with thousands and thousands of images of the Prophet Muhammad from his childhood, various scenes from his biography, all the way, really, to the end of his life. It's a very common thing that we see throughout Islam's history."

"These cultural taboos have become fixed in the minds of particularly Sunni Muslims who adhere to a puritanical, ultraorthodox brand of Islam."

The Sunni form of Islam is an extremist, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, as far as I understand it. Sunnism comes from Wahhabism, which is an extremist form of Islam originating out of Saudi Arabia in the 1700s and became their official religious doctrine in 1932.

wandajune6 · January 2015

I'm going to preface this with my acknowledgement that I'm far from an expert on the subject and I'm probably missing something big.

I'm incredibly confused about all of this for the same reasons you offer above. Charlie Hebdo is makes it a point to be as inflammatory as possible. Legally, this is their right and I believe that right should be protected. At the same time, this is unnecessarily offensive and hostile.

I'll just argue with you on one point- I don't think it's the cartoons that are being celebrated around the world. I believe that it's the fact that countries like France and the US give the press the freedom to print cartoons like those. That said, it's incredibly telling about France that those types of cartoons make it to the mainstream. Here, if cartoons of that variety get published it's through non-mainstream media.

Over the years, I've read many articles that say that the US remains more uncomfortable with the topic of race than Europe. I'm starting to think this is the case. This innate discomfort we feel about race prevents us from being more openly - and perhaps even proactively - offensive like the French.

What bothers me about Charlie Hebdo is that I place so much value on the freedom of speech and press that it bothers me to have it used with such disregard for its power.

novella1186 · January 2015

PrettyGirlLost said:

There "are no Koranic prohibitions against depictions of the Prophet Muhammad" according to religious scholar Reza Asla: http://www.npr.org/2015/01/10/376381089/depictions-of-muhammad-arent-explicity-forbidden-says-scholar

"It's certainly a cultural taboo, but that taboo arose organically and through a long period of time, which is why, precisely as you say, the history of Islam teems with thousands and thousands of images of the Prophet Muhammad from his childhood, various scenes from his biography, all the way, really, to the end of his life. It's a very common thing that we see throughout Islam's history."

"These cultural taboos have become fixed in the minds of particularly Sunni Muslims who adhere to a puritanical, ultraorthodox brand of Islam."

The Sunni form of Islam is an extremist, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, as far as I understand it. Sunnism comes from Wahhabism, which is an extremist form of Islam originating out of Saudi Arabia in the 1700s and became their official religious doctrine in 1932.

Right, what I read is that the Quran doesn't explicitly state that it's wrong to visually depict Muhammad, and it was common/normal to do so prior to the 1500s.

I'm obviously not Muslim and I don't know a ton about it, so that's why I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion on this here. There's a lot I just don't understand about the entire situation.

PrettyGirlLost · January 2015

wandajune6 said:

I'm going to preface this with my acknowledgement that I'm far from an expert on the subject and I'm probably missing something big.

I'm incredibly confused about all of this for the same reasons you offer above. Charlie Hebdo is makes it a point to be as inflammatory as possible. Legally, this is their right and I believe that right should be protected. At the same time, this is unnecessarily offensive and hostile.

I'll just argue with you on one point- I don't think it's the cartoons that are being celebrated around the world. I believe that it's the fact that countries like France and the US give the press the freedom to print cartoons like those. That said, it's incredibly telling about France that those types of cartoons make it to the mainstream. Here, if cartoons of that variety get published it's through non-mainstream media.

Over the years, I've read many articles that say that the US remains more uncomfortable with the topic of race than Europe. I'm starting to think this is the case. This innate discomfort we feel about race prevents us from being more openly - and perhaps even proactively - offensive like the French.

What bothers me about Charlie Hebdo is that I place so much value on the freedom of speech and press that it bothers me to have it used with such disregard for its power.

I'm pretty sure Charlie Hebdo is very well aware of the power and is using it to send a pretty clear message.

I thought it was absolutely fantastic that all of those world leaders marched with the 3.7million or so French citizens. I wish that our damn leaders had showed their support by marching as well.

novella1186 · January 2015

PrettyGirlLost, that's an interesting article. Particularly this paragraph stuck out to me:

"Well, partly it has to do with the fact that these cultural taboos have become fixed in the minds of particularly Sunni Muslims who adhere to a puritanical, ultraorthodox brand of Islam. So, for them, any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is insulting. But let's be clear. These weren't just depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. They were quite deliberately provocative images of the Prophet Muhammad. They were intended to provoke a kind of response, not a violent response, but a kind of negative response from Muslims in Europe. And in many ways, the editors of Charlie Hebdo would say, quite unapologetically, that the purpose of these images is to act as a kind of test for Europe's Muslims. Can you bear to have the Prophet Muhammad caricaturized in this way? If you can't, then you don't belong here."

I could be wrong here, but to me that's expressive of a continent-wide anti-Muslim attitude that no one feels bad about. And I don't think all Sunni are extremists, I just think they take a stricter view of their religion. Just like there are liberal Jews and Orthodox Jews and Hasidic Jews etc etc etc. At one point (I think in the 800's) it was "illegal" for Christians to depict Jesus. Religions tend to change over time. But I don't think that makes every member of a religion a threat or somehow bad. (And I know you weren't implying that at all. I'm just saying)

wandajune6 · January 2015

PrettyGirlLost said:

wandajune6 said:

I'm going to preface this with my acknowledgement that I'm far from an expert on the subject and I'm probably missing something big.

I'm incredibly confused about all of this for the same reasons you offer above. Charlie Hebdo is makes it a point to be as inflammatory as possible. Legally, this is their right and I believe that right should be protected. At the same time, this is unnecessarily offensive and hostile.

I'll just argue with you on one point- I don't think it's the cartoons that are being celebrated around the world. I believe that it's the fact that countries like France and the US give the press the freedom to print cartoons like those. That said, it's incredibly telling about France that those types of cartoons make it to the mainstream. Here, if cartoons of that variety get published it's through non-mainstream media.

Over the years, I've read many articles that say that the US remains more uncomfortable with the topic of race than Europe. I'm starting to think this is the case. This innate discomfort we feel about race prevents us from being more openly - and perhaps even proactively - offensive like the French.

What bothers me about Charlie Hebdo is that I place so much value on the freedom of speech and press that it bothers me to have it used with such disregard for its power.

I'm pretty sure Charlie Hebdo is very well aware of the power and is using it to send a pretty clear message.

I thought it was absolutely fantastic that all of those world leaders marched with the 3.7million or so French citizens. I wish that our damn leaders had showed their support by marching as well.

I agree that they understand their power and are using it to send a message. I was more referring to the likelihood of it leading to violence. Isn't this similar to what happened in Denmark a decade ago? It feels more like picking a fight than starting a dialogue.

I agree that our leaders should have been there to march as well. However, the march was against extremism and violence - the reactions/reactionaries, not the cartoons themselves. I can't help but wonder if that's how it's being received by the jihadis.

novella1186 · January 2015

wandajune6 said:

I'm going to preface this with my acknowledgement that I'm far from an expert on the subject and I'm probably missing something big.

I'm incredibly confused about all of this for the same reasons you offer above. Charlie Hebdo is makes it a point to be as inflammatory as possible. Legally, this is their right and I believe that right should be protected. At the same time, this is unnecessarily offensive and hostile.

I'll just argue with you on one point- I don't think it's the cartoons that are being celebrated around the world. I believe that it's the fact that countries like France and the US give the press the freedom to print cartoons like those. That said, it's incredibly telling about France that those types of cartoons make it to the mainstream. Here, if cartoons of that variety get published it's through non-mainstream media.

Over the years, I've read many articles that say that the US remains more uncomfortable with the topic of race than Europe. I'm starting to think this is the case. This innate discomfort we feel about race prevents us from being more openly - and perhaps even proactively - offensive like the French.

What bothers me about Charlie Hebdo is that I place so much value on the freedom of speech and press that it bothers me to have it used with such disregard for its power.

To me, personally, I feel like France tends to blur the lines between speaking out and being racist. When Israel was in a conflict/war (whatever terminology would apply here) recently, the French reacted by attacking local Jewish-owned businesses in France; smashing their windows, vandalizing, etc. To me, those are hate crimes specifically against Jews. Jews who do not even live in Israel, who have absolutely nothing to do with the Israeli conflict. And for me watching that on the news and watching how acceptable/common it was in France, I was really fucking scared. How far will that spread? How much will that attitude catch on? Is anti-Jewish sentiment on the rise again? What's going to happen? Etc. Scary things to think about.

And to me, they're encroaching on that again, but now with Muslims. I've heard that anti-Muslim attitudes are common in France. Much more common and accepted than in the US. I can't say that's a fact because I've never been a French citizen, but it's scary that they seem to teeter on the boarder of racism in such a big way sometimes and no one seems to say "this is wrong." I don't know... Just my own observations. I could be wrong.

PrettyGirlLost · January 2015

novella1186 said:

PrettyGirlLost, that's an interesting article. Particularly this paragraph stuck out to me:

"Well, partly it has to do with the fact that these cultural taboos have become fixed in the minds of particularly Sunni Muslims who adhere to a puritanical, ultraorthodox brand of Islam. So, for them, any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is insulting. But let's be clear. These weren't just depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. They were quite deliberately provocative images of the Prophet Muhammad. They were intended to provoke a kind of response, not a violent response, but a kind of negative response from Muslims in Europe. And in many ways, the editors of Charlie Hebdo would say, quite unapologetically, that the purpose of these images is to act as a kind of test for Europe's Muslims. Can you bear to have the Prophet Muhammad caricaturized in this way? If you can't, then you don't belong here."

I could be wrong here, but to me that's expressive of a continent-wide anti-Muslim attitude that no one feels bad about. And I don't think all Sunni are extremists, I just think they take a stricter view of their religion. Just like there are liberal Jews and Orthodox Jews and Hasidic Jews etc etc etc. At one point (I think in the 800's) it was "illegal" for Christians to depict Jesus. Religions tend to change over time. But I don't think that makes every member of a religion a threat or somehow bad. (And I know you weren't implying that at all. I'm just saying)

No, I feel that sentiment being expressed is that extremism is not welcomed in France and perhaps elsewhere throughout Europe. France prides itself on being a very secular country, hence their bans on wearing burqa's in public, deporting immigrants who were seeking citizenship for not assimilating into French culture, etc.

And again, as far as I understand it, Sunniism is an extreme interpretation of Islam. Reza says it in his interview.

ETA: Or maybe he's really saying that Saudi Arabia is the source of an extreme form of Sunniism.

Wegl13 · January 2015

This is not the first time Charlie Hebdo has been intentionally inflammatory. That is kind of.... Their thing. They actually have made statements to the effect of religion needs to be mocked, and specifically the Muslim religion. From what I have read so far, their intentions are pretty clearly assholery on that part. I'm not saying that justifies their execution, just that it does seem to be interesting that a paper few people would agree is PC is now being martyrized.
That being said, I am a huge fan of free speech, even when it comes to inflammatory or hate speech. My husband and I had a talk about this last night, and I decided that ideally, I would march on Washington to defend anyone's right to free speech/free press, even if that group was saying something I vehemently disagreed with (for example, the KKK or Westboro Baptist). I wonder sometimes if I would actually have the balls to do that in practice though.
So there's a question for you: would you go to work to defend the free press or speech rights of someone you didn't agree with?

novella1186 · January 2015

Wegl13 said:

This is not the first time Charlie Hebdo has been intentionally inflammatory. That is kind of.... Their thing. They actually have made statements to the effect of religion needs to be mocked, and specifically the Muslim religion. From what I have read so far, their intentions are pretty clearly assholery on that part. I'm not saying that justifies their execution, just that it does seem to be interesting that a paper few people would agree is PC is now being martyrized.
That being said, I am a huge fan of free speech, even when it comes to inflammatory or hate speech. My husband and I had a talk about this last night, and I decided that ideally, I would march on Washington to defend anyone's right to free speech/free press, even if that group was saying something I vehemently disagreed with (for example, the KKK or Westboro Baptist). I wonder sometimes if I would actually have the balls to do that in practice though.
So there's a question for you: would you go to work to defend the free press or speech rights of someone you didn't agree with?

I would absolutely defend something I don't agree with. I would not defend something I see as hateful. For example, I'm atheist. I have friends who are very religious and they flat-out tell me I'm wrong for being atheist. That's ok, they have every right to think I'm wrong. And I will absolutely defend their religious beliefs no matter how much I disagree with them, because they have a right to those beliefs.

But the KKK and Westboro specifically promote racism and hate. I will never defend that, ever. In that case, fuck free speech. I don't think there should be as much room in this world for hate as we've given it.

Kahlyla · January 2015

I would absolutely defend something I don't agree with. I would not defend something I see as hateful. For example, I'm atheist. I have friends who are very religious and they flat-out tell me I'm wrong for being atheist. That's ok, they have every right to think I'm wrong. And I will absolutely defend their religious beliefs no matter how much I disagree with them, because they have a right to those beliefs.

But the KKK and Westboro specifically promote racism and hate. I will never defend that, ever. In that case, fuck free speech. I don't think there should be as much room in this world for hate as we've given it.

This is exactly the deal here in Canada. The average person or member of the media would never really know that free speech is not absolute here (i.e. this really doesn't come up much), but the reality is that hate speech is not legally protected here.

the 'tails, per wikipedia:

"Freedom of speech in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unlike many democracies, freedom of speech in Canada is not protected, and is not absolute; Section 1 of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified."

novella1186 · January 2015

Kahlyla said:

I would absolutely defend something I don't agree with. I would not defend something I see as hateful. For example, I'm atheist. I have friends who are very religious and they flat-out tell me I'm wrong for being atheist. That's ok, they have every right to think I'm wrong. And I will absolutely defend their religious beliefs no matter how much I disagree with them, because they have a right to those beliefs.

But the KKK and Westboro specifically promote racism and hate. I will never defend that, ever. In that case, fuck free speech. I don't think there should be as much room in this world for hate as we've given it.

This is exactly the deal here in Canada. The average person or member of the media would never really know that free speech is not absolute here (i.e. this really doesn't come up much), but the reality is that hate speech is not legally protected here.

the 'tails, per wikipedia:

"Freedom of speech in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unlike many democracies, freedom of speech in Canada is not protected, and is not absolute; Section 1 of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified."

I do believe there is a caveat in the US constitution that says free speech is protected UNLESS it intentionally incites violence. I could be totally wrong. I had to read the constitution in its entirety for my law class a few years ago so it's not exactly fresh in my mind. And I know this is not a popular opinion, but why why why would we protect something hateful and racist? I don't care that it's "free speech." It's hateful. And racist. For fuck's sake.

emmaaa · January 2015

novella1186 said:

Wegl13 said:

This is not the first time Charlie Hebdo has been intentionally inflammatory. That is kind of.... Their thing. They actually have made statements to the effect of religion needs to be mocked, and specifically the Muslim religion. From what I have read so far, their intentions are pretty clearly assholery on that part. I'm not saying that justifies their execution, just that it does seem to be interesting that a paper few people would agree is PC is now being martyrized.
That being said, I am a huge fan of free speech, even when it comes to inflammatory or hate speech. My husband and I had a talk about this last night, and I decided that ideally, I would march on Washington to defend anyone's right to free speech/free press, even if that group was saying something I vehemently disagreed with (for example, the KKK or Westboro Baptist). I wonder sometimes if I would actually have the balls to do that in practice though.
So there's a question for you: would you go to work to defend the free press or speech rights of someone you didn't agree with?

I would absolutely defend something I don't agree with. I would not defend something I see as hateful. For example, I'm atheist. I have friends who are very religious and they flat-out tell me I'm wrong for being atheist. That's ok, they have every right to think I'm wrong. And I will absolutely defend their religious beliefs no matter how much I disagree with them, because they have a right to those beliefs.

But the KKK and Westboro specifically promote racism and hate. I will never defend that, ever. In that case, fuck free speech. I don't think there should be as much room in this world for hate as we've given it.

I'm sorry (and I am going to respectfully disagree with you here) but this attitude of, "I will support free speech as long as I don't see it as hateful" is exactly the issue. Free speech means the freedom of speech for everyone. It means that people can say whatever they want (as long as the intent is not inciting violence, as in shouting "fire" in a movie theater) regardless of us thinking it is wrong or racist or hateful.

novella1186 · January 2015

emmaaa said:

novella1186 said:

Wegl13 said:

This is not the first time Charlie Hebdo has been intentionally inflammatory. That is kind of.... Their thing. They actually have made statements to the effect of religion needs to be mocked, and specifically the Muslim religion. From what I have read so far, their intentions are pretty clearly assholery on that part. I'm not saying that justifies their execution, just that it does seem to be interesting that a paper few people would agree is PC is now being martyrized.
That being said, I am a huge fan of free speech, even when it comes to inflammatory or hate speech. My husband and I had a talk about this last night, and I decided that ideally, I would march on Washington to defend anyone's right to free speech/free press, even if that group was saying something I vehemently disagreed with (for example, the KKK or Westboro Baptist). I wonder sometimes if I would actually have the balls to do that in practice though.
So there's a question for you: would you go to work to defend the free press or speech rights of someone you didn't agree with?

I would absolutely defend something I don't agree with. I would not defend something I see as hateful. For example, I'm atheist. I have friends who are very religious and they flat-out tell me I'm wrong for being atheist. That's ok, they have every right to think I'm wrong. And I will absolutely defend their religious beliefs no matter how much I disagree with them, because they have a right to those beliefs.

But the KKK and Westboro specifically promote racism and hate. I will never defend that, ever. In that case, fuck free speech. I don't think there should be as much room in this world for hate as we've given it.

I'm sorry (and I am going to respectfully disagree with you here) but this attitude of, "I will support free speech as long as I don't see it as hateful" is exactly the issue. Free speech means the freedom of speech for everyone. It means that people can say whatever they want (as long as the intent is not inciting violence, as in shouting "fire" in a movie theater) regardless of us thinking it is wrong or racist or hateful.

I know this. That's definitely the point of it, and I know your opinion is the most common, because if we truly have free speech then by definition we can't pick and choose what people are allowed to say, even if it's hateful. So I know my opinion is never gonna fly. But it's still my opinion.

ETA: and I don't mean speech that I deem hateful. I mean speech that clearly is targeted towards a certain group, like calling someone the n-word, saying all gay people should burn in hell, saying all Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth. I doubt there's much question as to whether or not such statements are hateful. And again, I know that along with our right to free speech comes the right for other people to say such things. This is why I'd never get into politics. Because I know my view is "wrong" in accordance with our constitution.

emmaaa · January 2015

novella1186 said:

chpping quote tree

I would absolutely defend something I don't agree with. I would not defend something I see as hateful. For example, I'm atheist. I have friends who are very religious and they flat-out tell me I'm wrong for being atheist. That's ok, they have every right to think I'm wrong. And I will absolutely defend their religious beliefs no matter how much I disagree with them, because they have a right to those beliefs.

But the KKK and Westboro specifically promote racism and hate. I will never defend that, ever. In that case, fuck free speech. I don't think there should be as much room in this world for hate as we've given it.

I'm sorry (and I am going to respectfully disagree with you here) but this attitude of, "I will support free speech as long as I don't see it as hateful" is exactly the issue. Free speech means the freedom of speech for everyone. It means that people can say whatever they want (as long as the intent is not inciting violence, as in shouting "fire" in a movie theater) regardless of us thinking it is wrong or racist or hateful.

I know this. That's definitely the point of it, and I know your opinion is the most common, because if we truly have free speech then by definition we can't pick and choose what people are allowed to say, even if it's hateful. So I know my opinion is never gonna fly. But it's still my opinion.

I had the urge to say, "Well opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they're all shitty" just from habit. I'm sorry, that definitely doesn't apply to you!

Anyways, I do see where you're coming from though.

daria24 · January 2015

novella1186 said:

Kahlyla said:

I would absolutely defend something I don't agree with. I would not defend something I see as hateful. For example, I'm atheist. I have friends who are very religious and they flat-out tell me I'm wrong for being atheist. That's ok, they have every right to think I'm wrong. And I will absolutely defend their religious beliefs no matter how much I disagree with them, because they have a right to those beliefs.

But the KKK and Westboro specifically promote racism and hate. I will never defend that, ever. In that case, fuck free speech. I don't think there should be as much room in this world for hate as we've given it.

This is exactly the deal here in Canada. The average person or member of the media would never really know that free speech is not absolute here (i.e. this really doesn't come up much), but the reality is that hate speech is not legally protected here.

the 'tails, per wikipedia:

"Freedom of speech in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unlike many democracies, freedom of speech in Canada is not protected, and is not absolute; Section 1 of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified."

I do believe there is a caveat in the US constitution that says free speech is protected UNLESS it intentionally incites violence. I could be totally wrong. I had to read the constitution in its entirety for my law class a few years ago so it's not exactly fresh in my mind. And I know this is not a popular opinion, but why why why would we protect something hateful and racist? I don't care that it's "free speech." It's hateful. And racist. For fuck's sake.

That isn't in the Constitution, that is an interpretation of the Constitution via the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also has ruled to protect hate speech. Just a reminder that the First Amendment protects citizens from the government restricting their speech, NOT from private individuals restricting the speech of others. So a restaurant can kick out a person spewing racial epitaphs but the government can't pass a law stating that protestors using the n-word, for example, can be ticketed/arrested/forcibly removed, etc.

As far as the magazine cover...I have a lot of mixed feelings about Charlie Hebdo, I think this Daily Beast piece sums up a lot of my thoughts http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/09/trolls-and-martyrdom-je-ne-suis-pas-charlie.html I

chibiyui · January 2015

"Freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from consequences" or "freedom from things I don't like" people who find Charlie Hebdo offensive and racist are free to call them out on being assholes, on being racist. They can boycott or peacefully protest.

Charlie Hebdo are equal opportunity assholes. They skewer catholicism just as much if not more than Islam.

I have no problem with their new cover. It's more poignant then a giant middle finger.

And, it doesn't matter that some muslims find depictions of the prophet Muhammed offensive. Part of living is dealing with assholes. You don't respond violently to someone doing something that upsets you. This goes for everyone of every race and creed. Someone is always going to look down on someone else's beliefs, and that's on them for being a dick and not you.

ashley8918 · January 2015

Ooh! Y'all know how much I love to talk politics!

I'm on mobile, so I'll have to come back to explain further, but I am super pro-this cover.

Also, I do happen to agree with Charlie Hebdo and what they did here. But even if I didnt, this:

morewineplease · January 2015

wandajune6 said:

I'm going to preface this with my acknowledgement that I'm far from an expert on the subject and I'm probably missing something big.

I'm incredibly confused about all of this for the same reasons you offer above. Charlie Hebdo is makes it a point to be as inflammatory as possible. Legally, this is their right and I believe that right should be protected. At the same time, this is unnecessarily offensive and hostile.

I'll just argue with you on one point- I don't think it's the cartoons that are being celebrated around the world. I believe that it's the fact that countries like France and the US give the press the freedom to print cartoons like those. That said, it's incredibly telling about France that those types of cartoons make it to the mainstream. Here, if cartoons of that variety get published it's through non-mainstream media.

Over the years, I've read many articles that say that the US remains more uncomfortable with the topic of race than Europe. I'm starting to think this is the case. This innate discomfort we feel about race prevents us from being more openly - and perhaps even proactively - offensive like the French.

What bothers me about Charlie Hebdo is that I place so much value on the freedom of speech and press that it bothers me to have it used with such disregard for its power.

The problem is we cannot support freedom of speech and at the same time expect people to not use offensive speech. While I find the Westboro Baptist Church's actions of protesting funerals despicable even this is protected speech (in this country).

(I am not sure if this link will work.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMF5MjzgJrM 

STARMOON44 · January 2015

I think it's brilliant. It's hateful, offensive, pouring oil on the fire. It is 100% exactly what Charlie Hebdo has always done. I don't buy the paper, I rarely read it, it's generally not to my taste, but I think this response is spot on true to their mission.

WinstonsGirl · January 2015

I think part of the reaction comes from the French culture which is so passionate about things. Even in Quebec, you see more student protests, political debates, strikes than in English Canada. Their pride for this passion stems back to the Revolution.

I also see it as a retort to the terrorists that the murders don't matter, they will still write/draw what they want and they are not scared. I see it as a deliberate act to show that they aren't scared after what happened, even if it coming across as offensive. Terrorism to me (in a overly simplified way) is a big bully trying to get their way through aggression and this is the French standing up to it after a beating, telling them that this won't stop them. Yes, I know it's more complex than that, but that's my simplified view.

ashley8918 · January 2015

So, here are some of my thoughts:

I fucking LOVE that they did this. It sends a very powerful message; one that needed to be sent. The very point of terrorism is to intimidate and incite terror/fear. This cover says to me "You failed; we are not afraid." And to that, I say "Fuck yes!" This took some serious metaphorical balls on the part of Charlie Hebdo, and they have my utmost respect for it.

As far as it being intentionally inflammatory; you bet your ass it is! Charlie Hebdo is similar to our "The Onion"; inflammatory is their thing. I would expect nothing less.

...To be continued. I've got to do some more work. Boo!

JCbride2015 · January 2015

I'm also strongly in favor of the new cover. I get that it's offensive purely because it's a depiction of Muhammad, but I actually love the cover. And although I knew about Charlie Hebdo before this, the magazine is not something I'd normally buy or care too much about. I don't necessarily think their brand of purposely offensive humor is really productive or fosters any kind of useful dialogue, but I'm on the side that free speech should have as few restrictions as possible.

Viczaesar · January 2015

I really wish Reza Aslan wasn't being used by the media as the primary source on Islam. There are so many people who are better scholars and more appropriate sources.

ashley8918 · January 2015

PrettyGirlLost said:

There "are no Koranic prohibitions against depictions of the Prophet Muhammad" according to religious scholar Reza Asla: http://www.npr.org/2015/01/10/376381089/depictions-of-muhammad-arent-explicity-forbidden-says-scholar

"It's certainly a cultural taboo, but that taboo arose organically and through a long period of time, which is why, precisely as you say, the history of Islam teems with thousands and thousands of images of the Prophet Muhammad from his childhood, various scenes from his biography, all the way, really, to the end of his life. It's a very common thing that we see throughout Islam's history."

"These cultural taboos have become fixed in the minds of particularly Sunni Muslims who adhere to a puritanical, ultraorthodox brand of Islam."

The Sunni form of Islam is an extremist, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, as far as I understand it. Sunnism comes from Wahhabism, which is an extremist form of Islam originating out of Saudi Arabia in the 1700s and became their official religious doctrine in 1932.

Oh, and yes to all of this.

There is nothing that expressly prohibits the depiction of the prophet. It's similar to burning the flag here in the U.S. Not expressly prohibited (at least, not right now), but certainly looked down upon, to put it lightly.

PrettyGirlLost · January 2015

Viczaesar said:

I really wish Reza Aslan wasn't being used by the media as the primary source on Islam. There are so many people who are better scholars and more appropriate sources.

Which are?

Viczaesar · January 2015

PrettyGirlLost said:

Viczaesar said:

I really wish Reza Aslan wasn't being used by the media as the primary source on Islam. There are so many people who are better scholars and more appropriate sources.

Which are?

Pretty much anyone who actually has a degree in Islamic Studies from a reputable Religious Studies program and/or teaches Islam at a reputable department, but off the top of my head Amir Hussein (editor for the JAAR and Prof. at LMU), Nathan French (Miami U. in Ohio), Mohammad Khalil (Michigan), Sherman Jackson (USC), Ahmad Atif Ahmad (UCSB), Malika Zeghal (Harvard), Asad Ahmed (UC Berkeley).

larrygaga · January 2015

Same group that banned the hijab right?

PrettyGirlLost · January 2015

Viczaesar said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Viczaesar said:

I really wish Reza Aslan wasn't being used by the media as the primary source on Islam. There are so many people who are better scholars and more appropriate sources.

Which are?

Pretty much anyone who actually has a degree in Islamic Studies from a reputable Religious Studies program and/or teaches Islam at a reputable department, but off the top of my head Amir Hussein (editor for the JAAR and Prof. at LMU), Nathan French (Miami U. in Ohio), Mohammad Khalil (Michigan), Sherman Jackson (USC), Ahmad Atif Ahmad (UCSB), Malika Zeghal (Harvard), Asad Ahmed (UC Berkeley).

And lay people who aren't religious studies majors would be able to discern reputable vs non reputable how?

Why isn't Aslan reputable?

I'm asking these questions because this isn't my primary field, and religious studies and geo- political based opinions and information seem more subjective and subjected to the personal bias of the scholar, and that makes it difficult to know who is credible and who is not. It's probably likely to spot the outright nuts, bigots, and extremists, but how do you tell who is giving accurate info and who is just bullshitting?

Viczaesar · January 2015

PrettyGirlLost said:

Viczaesar said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Viczaesar said:

I really wish Reza Aslan wasn't being used by the media as the primary source on Islam. There are so many people who are better scholars and more appropriate sources.

Which are?

Pretty much anyone who actually has a degree in Islamic Studies from a reputable Religious Studies program and/or teaches Islam at a reputable department, but off the top of my head Amir Hussein (editor for the JAAR and Prof. at LMU), Nathan French (Miami U. in Ohio), Mohammad Khalil (Michigan), Sherman Jackson (USC), Ahmad Atif Ahmad (UCSB), Malika Zeghal (Harvard), Asad Ahmed (UC Berkeley).

And lay people who aren't religious studies majors would be able to discern reputable vs non reputable how?

Why isn't Aslan reputable?

I'm asking these questions because this isn't my primary field, and religious studies and geo- political based opinions and information seem more subjective and subjected to the personal bias of the scholar, and that makes it difficult to know who is credible and who is not. It's probably likely to spot the outright nuts, bigots, and extremists, but how do you tell who is giving accurate info and who is just bullshitting?

My first sentence was "I really wish Reza Aslan wasn't being used by the media as the primary source on Islam." I didn't say anything about lay people discerning reputability. In fact, that's why I wish the media wasn't focusing on Aslan. He's shiny and outspoken and thus gets attention, when there are many more reputable scholars that I wish the media focused on instead. I'm not criticizing you for citing the interview with him.

I'm going to have to be careful about how much I say about Aslan in order to keep my anonymity, but basically he not an expert on Islam (or Christianity, for that matter) and he deliberately misrepresents his degrees. He's a professor of creative writing, not of religion. His PhD is in Sociology, not in Religious Studies, and nobody from the Religious Studies department at that institution (one of the top programs in the nation) signed off on his dissertation, for specific reasons.

Scholars of academic religion (as opposed to theology) are no more likely to be biased than scholars of history or anthropology or sociology or art history or (fill in the blank). With Aslan it's hard because he appears to have a good academic pedigree (that's how he presents himself). Generally, though, I'd pay attention to what degree they have and from where, and where they teach and/or publish. I wouldn't say that Aslan is the worst source the media could use, but he's also certainly not the best, not by a long shot, which is unfortunate.

The new Charlie Hebdo cover

Re: The new Charlie Hebdo cover

Choose Another Board

Search Boards