Charlie Hebdo publishing prophet cartoon on new cover

[arjunadawn]

I believe in freedom of speech, but I'm not going to walk up to a MMA champ, especially one already pissed off, and say, Your mom sure %$*@ me good last night.

The editor is known to have said "I would rather die standing on my feet then kneeling." This is courage, not stupidity. This is conviction, not ignorance. A great many people identify with this conviction.

.

Well, now, you're talking oranges to my apples. I never said anything about stupidity, and I never would condone kneeling. Those are your words.

I was talking about discretion.

But respect comes into play, too. I don't agree with other people's religions, but I never mock them. Never. I respect their right to believe what they want to believe, just as your editor demanded respect for his free speech. Except my respect doesn't get people killed.

The man who died standing up for what he believed in, he took a number of innocents with him. They were minding their own business in a grocery store. And he did it without asking them if that was okay with them, and their children, and other loved ones.

I call that irresponsible and unloving.

It also says a lot about the people at the magazine, that they chose to put on their cover that Mohammed forgives them, rather than "Charlie Hebdo" forgives the killers.

This is the contradiction of religion, muslim faith and extremist terrorism. They should be incompatible but of course we see from last week they are not.

Most religions talk of peace and forgiveness but the extremist killers took it upon themselves to kill in order to avenge the offence to Muhammed.

How do they know that Muhammed hasn't already forgiven them in the way that say another christian prophet may. Why can't Mohammed say "Forgive them for they know not what they do", which is of course attributed to Jesus.

Why must the response be violent, if the Muslim religion is apparently one of peace. Who tells these people to react with extreme violence, if the Muslim faith is one of peace and compassion.

Why do christians react with compassion and forgiveness for the ignorance of others but Muslim react with violent indignation.

The cartoon is comparing the reaction of Muslims to offence with other religions who may choose to say " I forgive your ignorance", for insulting my religion.

Which is of course suggesting that the reaction of the extremists killers was driven by base ignorance.

This is the contradiction of extremism. Why must extremists fight offence to Muhammed with guns. Why can't they forgive?

These people did exactly what the messenger of god, Mohammed, would do- exactly! They did exactly what was done to others during the time of the prophet- there were many killed (that is how they overtook and slaughtered Mecca- the people were just unprepared for the degree of savagery). In the days of the prophet people but words to pen as well, thoughts to paper, and said some things that the new islamic prophet rejected as insult or sleight. These people were exterminated and the accounts are in islamic sources. There are many contemporary accounts of these heinous murders; I will link to a few.

This is why they know that the prophet doesn't forgive [them]. The prophet was the perfect man to emulate. The prophet killed or had killed people for the same exact offense. What you describe above are questions regarding the nature of how the world should be, but not how islam is. Islam has never been the nature of what you ask; it cannot become as you've asked.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/016-insulters-islam.htm

[Kitsune]

I believe in freedom of speech, but I'm not going to walk up to a MMA champ, especially one already pissed off, and say, Your mom sure %$*@ me good last night.

The editor is known to have said "I would rather die standing on my feet then kneeling." This is courage, not stupidity. This is conviction, not ignorance. A great many people identify with this conviction.

Dying foe ideas, how ridiculous and selfish it is !

Not for ideas.

For our right to laugh about and say what we like

[Kitsune]

These guys are heroes

Being able to forgive such barbarism shows a lot of love respect and hope in the human race.

And if they are able to forgive SO SHOULD WE

I guess you misunderstood

they don't mean they forgive the killers

the prophet says he forgives the newspaper for printing his pictures

It probably means forgiveness both ways.

Both the caption and comment interpretations are confusing: I doubt if the Islamists agree that the prophet would be forgiving here,

and I dont understand how the cartoonist can be forgiving.

Mahomed is saying "je suis Charlie"

The cartoonist says ; "All is forgiven"

What's not clear???

[Thai at Heart]

I believe in freedom of speech, but I'm not going to walk up to a MMA champ, especially one already pissed off, and say, Your mom sure %$*@ me good last night.

The editor is known to have said "I would rather die standing on my feet then kneeling." This is courage, not stupidity. This is conviction, not ignorance. A great many people identify with this conviction.

.

Well, now, you're talking oranges to my apples. I never said anything about stupidity, and I never would condone kneeling. Those are your words.

I was talking about discretion.

But respect comes into play, too. I don't agree with other people's religions, but I never mock them. Never. I respect their right to believe what they want to believe, just as your editor demanded respect for his free speech. Except my respect doesn't get people killed.

The man who died standing up for what he believed in, he took a number of innocents with him. They were minding their own business in a grocery store. And he did it without asking them if that was okay with them, and their children, and other loved ones.

I call that irresponsible and unloving.

It also says a lot about the people at the magazine, that they chose to put on their cover that Mohammed forgives them, rather than "Charlie Hebdo" forgives the killers.

This is the contradiction of religion, muslim faith and extremist terrorism. They should be incompatible but of course we see from last week they are not.

Most religions talk of peace and forgiveness but the extremist killers took it upon themselves to kill in order to avenge the offence to Muhammed.

How do they know that Muhammed hasn't already forgiven them in the way that say another christian prophet may. Why can't Mohammed say "Forgive them for they know not what they do", which is of course attributed to Jesus.

Why must the response be violent, if the Muslim religion is apparently one of peace. Who tells these people to react with extreme violence, if the Muslim faith is one of peace and compassion.

Why do christians react with compassion and forgiveness for the ignorance of others but Muslim react with violent indignation.

The cartoon is comparing the reaction of Muslims to offence with other religions who may choose to say " I forgive your ignorance", for insulting my religion.

Which is of course suggesting that the reaction of the extremists killers was driven by base ignorance.

This is the contradiction of extremism. Why must extremists fight offence to Muhammed with guns. Why can't they forgive?

These people did exactly what the messenger of god, Mohammed, would do- exactly! They did exactly what was done to others during the time of the prophet- there were many killed (that is how they overtook and slaughtered Mecca- the people were just unprepared for the degree of savagery). In the days of the prophet people but words to pen as well, thoughts to paper, and said some things that the new islamic prophet rejected as insult or sleight. These people were exterminated and the accounts are in islamic sources. There are many contemporary accounts of these heinous murders; I will link to a few.

This is why they know that the prophet doesn't forgive [them]. The prophet was the perfect man to emulate. The prophet killed or had killed people for the same exact offense. What you describe above are questions regarding the nature of how the world should be, but not how islam is. Islam has never been the nature of what you ask; it cannot become as you've asked.


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/016-insulters-islam.htm

I am giving my interpretation of the meaning of the cartoon not an interpretation of the mindset of the killers. The cartoon is trying to provoke some thought in the mind of the reader.

Obviously not....

[Thai at Heart]

These guys are heroes

Being able to forgive such barbarism shows a lot of love respect and hope in the human race.

And if they are able to forgive SO SHOULD WE

I guess you misunderstood
they don't mean they forgive the killers
the prophet says he forgives the newspaper for printing his pictures

It probably means forgiveness both ways.

Both the caption and comment interpretations are confusing: I doubt if the Islamists agree that the prophet would be forgiving here,
and I dont understand how the cartoonist can be forgiving.

Mahomed is saying "je suis Charlie"
The cartoonist says ; "All is forgiven"
What's not clear???

Divine judgement being the reserve of kings and gods, not mere prophets.

[arjunadawn]

I believe in freedom of speech, but I'm not going to walk up to a MMA champ, especially one already pissed off, and say, Your mom sure %$*@ me good last night.

The editor is known to have said "I would rather die standing on my feet then kneeling." This is courage, not stupidity. This is conviction, not ignorance. A great many people identify with this conviction.

Dying foe ideas, how ridiculous and selfish it is !

Not for ideas.

For our right to laugh about and say what we like

Six of one, 1/2 dozen the other- it is essentially the same thing. I understand you. I just object to this type of position. I want to say bad things about this type of thinking but cannot do this without actually implying this about you- I will do no such thing. I understand you just think differently than I do. However the road to oppression and censorship is often paved with screams for security and greying the area where one's rights begin and another's right ends.

I would like to say a word about "right to laugh," "say what we like," and generally, "ideas:" The core nature of what constitutes freedom of speech, the right to laugh and say what one likes, has been long ago adjudicated by many western post enlightenment courts and legislation. If, for example, one were to suggest such expression as in Paris is analogous to screaming fire in a theater, this would be an error. The acts of this magazine are in keeping with the fundamental nature of free speech. Free speech is not nice speech; it is not polite speech; it is not feel good nor accommodating speech. Free speech will often horrify our sensibilities, shock our world view, and impugn in many ways, various public figures. This is the nature of a right to laugh, and what may be said in a world where Man is born with natural rights.

The abstract nature of mind, man, and ideas is to use language to form concepts and ideas, and likewise, use concepts and ideas, and express this in language and symbol. Shar'ia by its very nature opposes such freedom because freedom is antithetical to Islam, freedom suggests man has choice. Man does not have choice; Islam is established as a Slave Master relationship between mortal and Al Lah. Freedom is anathema to Islam. Shar'ia enables this very delicate, divine relationship between all humans and between humans and god.

Note: Islam widely accepts the principle of Slave to Al Lah when describing themselves or believers. This is not used in a derogatory manner by them. It is used as an expression of devotion and subordination to Al Lah. But the use of the world Slave by me is correct, except I find the concept repugnant.

[Basil B]

"SOLD OUT"

Being reported that Parisian News Agents are selling out in minutes

[Steely Dan]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30808698

Apparently after the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo the Muslim Council of Great Britain asked Muslims to behave

'With dignified nobility we must be restrained'

Now that would make a refreshing change.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Steely Dan

[onionluke]

As a satirical, anti establishment newspaper I think Charlie hebdo should have had a cartoon of the 40 world leaders marching for liberty and freedom of speech!

[Kitsune]

Not for ideas.

For our right to laugh about and say what we like

Six of one, 1/2 dozen the other- it is essentially the same thing. I understand you. I just object to this type of position. I want to say bad things about this type of thinking but cannot do this without actually implying this about you- I will do no such thing. I understand you just think differently than I do. However the road to oppression and censorship is often paved with screams for security and greying the area where one's rights begin and another's right ends.

I would like to say a word about "right to laugh," "say what we like," and generally, "ideas:" The core nature of what constitutes freedom of speech, the right to laugh and say what one likes, has been long ago adjudicated by many western post enlightenment courts and legislation. If, for example, one were to suggest such expression as in Paris is analogous to screaming fire in a theater, this would be an error. The acts of this magazine are in keeping with the fundamental nature of free speech. Free speech is not nice speech; it is not polite speech; it is not feel good nor accommodating speech. Free speech will often horrify our sensibilities, shock our world view, and impugn in many ways, various public figures. This is the nature of a right to laugh, and what may be said in a world where Man is born with natural rights.

The abstract nature of mind, man, and ideas is to use language to form concepts and ideas, and likewise, use concepts and ideas, and express this in language and symbol. Shar'ia by its very nature opposes such freedom because freedom is antithetical to Islam, freedom suggests man has choice. Man does not have choice; Islam is established as a Slave Master relationship between mortal and Al Lah. Freedom is anathema to Islam. Shar'ia enables this very delicate, divine relationship between all humans and between humans and god.

Note: Islam widely accepts the principle of Slave to Al Lah when describing themselves or believers. This is not used in a derogatory manner by them. It is used as an expression of devotion and subordination to Al Lah. But the use of the world Slave by me is correct, except I find the concept repugnant.

They don't say "bad things" they mock people

They drew the Queen of England's behind

She did send her condolences for Charlie's attack

Contrarily to these idiots she has a sense of humor

[nelson bunker]

This French seller on ebay sold 96 copies of the latest CH at 199.9 USD...

He made 19000 dollars in a few hours...

http://www.ebay.fr/itm/351284862274?clk_rvr_id=763951800051&rmvSB=true

[Mosha]

It sold out on the news stands of Paris.

[Mosha]

Not for ideas.

For our right to laugh about and say what we like

Six of one, 1/2 dozen the other- it is essentially the same thing. I understand you. I just object to this type of position. I want to say bad things about this type of thinking but cannot do this without actually implying this about you- I will do no such thing. I understand you just think differently than I do. However the road to oppression and censorship is often paved with screams for security and greying the area where one's rights begin and another's right ends.

I would like to say a word about "right to laugh," "say what we like," and generally, "ideas:" The core nature of what constitutes freedom of speech, the right to laugh and say what one likes, has been long ago adjudicated by many western post enlightenment courts and legislation. If, for example, one were to suggest such expression as in Paris is analogous to screaming fire in a theater, this would be an error. The acts of this magazine are in keeping with the fundamental nature of free speech. Free speech is not nice speech; it is not polite speech; it is not feel good nor accommodating speech. Free speech will often horrify our sensibilities, shock our world view, and impugn in many ways, various public figures. This is the nature of a right to laugh, and what may be said in a world where Man is born with natural rights.

The abstract nature of mind, man, and ideas is to use language to form concepts and ideas, and likewise, use concepts and ideas, and express this in language and symbol. Shar'ia by its very nature opposes such freedom because freedom is antithetical to Islam, freedom suggests man has choice. Man does not have choice; Islam is established as a Slave Master relationship between mortal and Al Lah. Freedom is anathema to Islam. Shar'ia enables this very delicate, divine relationship between all humans and between humans and god.

Note: Islam widely accepts the principle of Slave to Al Lah when describing themselves or believers. This is not used in a derogatory manner by them. It is used as an expression of devotion and subordination to Al Lah. But the use of the world Slave by me is correct, except I find the concept repugnant.

They don't say "bad things" they mock people

They drew the Queen of England's behind

She did send her condolences for Charlie's attack

Contrarily to these idiots she has a sense of humor

Also no Royalists went on a killing spree.

[nelson bunker]

It sold out on the news stands of Paris.

Very true and it was the same all over France, but the editor carries on printing.

CH will be available everyday until Jan the 20th, you only have to wait...

[Jingthing]

Sounds like collectors speculation mostly. Pretty bizarre.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Ulysses G.]

I'm guessing that so many will be printed that they won't be be worth much, but what do I know?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[Jingthing]

I'm guessing that so many will be printed that they won't be be worth much, but what do I know?

They can't seem to print enough.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[JetsetBkk]

The BBC web site and BBC World TV news are covering the new edition.

But, of course, not one picture of the front page cartoon.

Chicken-sh!ts.

[Lissos]

As a 'non' Muslim I find the article by this particular Muslim echoes some of my own observations, even if he is a tad angry and throws in a grenade about Israel :

In particular :

Please get a grip. None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn. Has your publication, for example, run cartoons mocking the Holocaust? No? How about caricatures of the 9/11 victims falling from the twin towers? I didn't think so (and I am glad it hasn't).

What I'm getting at in saying I see the value of some aspects of this article is that personally I'm finding myself increasingly scoffing and shaking my head every single time I hear or read defiant rhetoric on the news or in newspapers about this deity of free speech in the last few days as if we will all truly 'defend to the death' the right of people we don't even know or highly dislike, to make highly offensive remarks without restriction, because the facts show otherwise almost ever other day in our own nations. One guest on a news channel today even said - "there is no 'but' about freedom of expression and freedom of speech". Nonsense. Of course there is, if you care to pause and look at reality, and law is often the watchdog for it whether that be in the Gulf nations, Germany, Britain or Thailand. Unfortunately, this whole thing has been set in motion now to such a degree in the understandable desire to give the middle finger to those who would actually 'kill' us for being offensive, that there is probably no space left for debate on the veracity of the claim that free speech is an absolute in western nations. I suspect there is no turning back now because understandably the emotion is too high, but we're all going to look pretty foolish in the long run when others keep pointing out the inconsistencies.

Then there are your readers. Will you have a word with them, please? According to a 2011 YouGov poll, 82% of voters backed the prosecution of protesters who set fire to poppies.

Apparently, it isn't just Muslims who get offended.

[Kitsune]

Hilarious Fox News report explaining that some areas in central Paris are no go zones and comparing Belleville, Majenta and Pere Lachaise to Bagdad !

Can't get enough of it

Thank you Fox News you're the best entertainment program!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/12/paris-attacks-prompt-fears-france-muslim-no-go-zones-incubating-jihad/

[Ulysses G.]

Why am I not surprised that the article has little to do with your description of it. Why is it that the Fox News-bashers usually have to rely on fabrications to make their point?

“Most of the time, these are quiet places with nothing going on,” said Daniel Pipes, the president of the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank. “But they’re apt to flare up.”

[Kitsune]

Why am I not surprised that the article has little to do with your description of it. Why is it that the Fox News-bashers usually have to rely on fabrications to make their point?

“Most of the time, these are quiet places with nothing going on,” said Daniel Pipes, the president of the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank. “But they’re apt to flare up.”

Fox News Nolan Peterson has already backed up and apologized

Edited January 15, 2015 by Kitsune

[Steely Dan]

As a 'non' Muslim I find the article by this particular Muslim echoes some of my own observations, even if he is a tad angry and throws in a grenade about Israel :

In particular :

Please get a grip. None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn. Has your publication, for example, run cartoons mocking the Holocaust? No? How about caricatures of the 9/11 victims falling from the twin towers? I didn't think so (and I am glad it hasn't).

What I'm getting at in saying I see the value of some aspects of this article is that personally I'm finding myself increasingly scoffing and shaking my head every single time I hear or read defiant rhetoric on the news or in newspapers about this deity of free speech in the last few days as if we will all truly 'defend to the death' the right of people we don't even know or highly dislike, to make highly offensive remarks without restriction, because the facts show otherwise almost ever other day in our own nations. One guest on a news channel today even said - "there is no 'but' about freedom of expression and freedom of speech". Nonsense. Of course there is, if you care to pause and look at reality, and law is often the watchdog for it whether that be in the Gulf nations, Germany, Britain or Thailand. Unfortunately, this whole thing has been set in motion now to such a degree in the understandable desire to give the middle finger to those who would actually 'kill' us for being offensive, that there is probably no space left for debate on the veracity of the claim that free speech is an absolute in western nations. I suspect there is no turning back now because understandably the emotion is too high, but we're all going to look pretty foolish in the long run when others keep pointing out the inconsistencies.

Then there are your readers. Will you have a word with them, please? According to a 2011 YouGov poll, 82% of voters backed the prosecution of protesters who set fire to poppies.

Apparently, it isn't just Muslims who get offended.

This is a good point, due to (irreconcilable) cultural differences we will not see eye to eye regarding where the limits to free speech should be drawn. The trouble is crossing such lines results in prosecution, maybe a fine or prison in the West. In the Islamic world it results in rioting, the burning down of embassies and murder. The Muslim mayor of Rotterdam observed that anyone who resorts to these in the West should pack their bags and F off.

I could not agree more, there is nothing more to add, save our nations should be a little more proactive in helping with the bag packing.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Ulysses G.]

Why am I not surprised that the article has little to do with your description of it. Why is it that the Fox News-bashers usually have to rely on fabrications to make their point?

Most of the time, these are quiet places with nothing going on, said Daniel Pipes, the president of the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank. But theyre apt to flare up.

Fox News Nolan Peterson has already backed up and apologized

Not for anything in your article, which had nothing to do with him.

Peterson apologized for saying that the British city of Birmingham was "totally Muslim" in a TV interview, not for anything in your article, which he did not even write. He was a guest on Fox, not a broadcaster, by the way.

As I have said before, the Fox News-bashers almost always rely on falsehoods and distortions to make their points. Unfortunately, too many people just accept the slander, instead of doing a little research to find out the truth

Edited January 15, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Tongdee]

If we lay down for these lunatics what is left? A world that is run by Islamic extremism?

One approach that would make the world a safer place for everyone would be to Run the cartoons up some flagpoles & see who salutes...

New legislation regarding terrorism vandalism. "Bait" the Radicals into "Unescapable Traps", cameras running, armour in place...

Let the rule of Law (where it is not just a sham) do its thing.

The radicals would respond in their own way... ... ...

The "Moderates" ( if any really exist) would mumble at most and go back to work, family etc.

After several run throughs of variations on this theme a large ##### of the more radical psychos would be off the streets.

The Moderates would be unaffected... ... ...

[Tongdee]

I will not be buying a copy .

I will buy 10 ... ... ...

[Jingthing]

It's not about supporting all the content in any magazine. It's about Islamic Jihadists thinking they can go into secular countries and dictate how people express themselves by terrorizing them. The people are saying: NON!

[Tongdee]

I believe in freedom of speech, but I'm not going to walk up to a MMA champ, especially one already pissed off, and say, Your mom sure %$*@ me good last night.

The editor is known to have said "I would rather die standing on my feet then kneeling." This is courage, not stupidity. This is conviction, not ignorance. A great many people identify with this conviction.

.

Well, now, you're talking oranges to my apples. I never said anything about stupidity, and I never would condone kneeling. Those are your words.

I was talking about discretion.

But respect comes into play, too. I don't agree with other people's religions, but I never mock them. Never. I respect their right to believe what they want to believe, just as your editor demanded respect for his free speech. Except my respect doesn't get people killed.

The man who died standing up for what he believed in, he took a number of innocents with him. They were minding their own business in a grocery store. And he did it without asking them if that was okay with them, and their children, and other loved ones.

I call that irresponsible and unloving.

It also says a lot about the people at the magazine, that they chose to put on their cover that Mohammed forgives them, rather than "Charlie Hebdo" forgives the killers.

The man standing up did not take any innocents with him.

Easily angered Psychopaths with an imaginary superhero from a longer cartoon book

a cartoon book "In Print" (that has a legal right to be printed & shared),

who were looking for an excuse to murder people they wanted to murder,

Murdered innocent people that read a different cartoon book ( that also has a legal right to exist).

felt they had now an adequate excuse and murdered innocents

[canman]

I am informed that islamic terrorists who want to kill us object to being called "rag heads" since the item they wear on their heads is not a towel but actually a small folded sheet.

In the spirit of trying not to offend those of the cult of the perpetually offended I will henceforth in future refer to them as 'Little Sheet Heads".

I encourage others to follow suit.