The debate about whether Western non-Muslims should “provoke” Muslims by drawing Muhammad is flaring up again as this trial begins in France. As always, numerous people are saying that mocking Muhammad is “disrespectful” to Muslims, it’s needlessly “poking the bear,” and the like. What they still don’t realize is that this controversy is really over the question of whether or not the free West, such as it is today, will stand up for the freedom of speech as the foundation of a free society, or surrender to violent intimidation and self-censor in the face of threats. Surrendering on this point will only bring on more intimidation and more threats. But no one seems to mind that. Not yet, anyway.
“‘We Will Never Give Up’: Charlie Hebdo Says Republishing Prophet Cartoon,” Agence France-Presse, September 1, 2020:
French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, the target of a massacre by Islamist gunmen in 2015, said Tuesday it was republishing hugely controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed to mark the start of the trial this week of alleged accomplices in the attack.
“We will never lie down. We will never give up,” its director Laurent “Riss” Sourisseau wrote in an editorial to go with the republication of the cartoons in its latest edition.
Twelve people, including some of France’s most celebrated cartoonists, were killed on January 7, 2015, when brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi went on a gun rampage at the paper’s offices in Paris.
The perpetrators were killed in the wake of the massacre but 14 alleged accomplices in the attacks, which also targeted a Jewish supermarket, will go on trial in Paris on Wednesday.
The cover of the latest Charlie Hebdo issue shows a dozen cartoons first published by the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten in 2005 — and then reprinted by Charlie Hebdo in 2006 — which unleashed a storm of anger across the Muslim world.
In the centre of the cover is a cartoon of the prophet drawn by its cartoonist Jean Cabut, known as Cabu, who lost his life in the massacre.
“All of this, just for that,” the front-page headline says….
“We have often been asked since January 2015 to print other caricatures of Mohammed,” it said.
“We have always refused to do so, not because it is prohibited — the law allows us to do so — but because there was a need for a good reason to do it, a reason which has meaning and which brings something to the debate.”…
nicu says
I hope the ” religion of Peace ” won’t kill more people !
David M says
They better have good security at their office this time.
revereridesagain says
The thugs and whores of Allah should be met at the door this time with 10 times the firepower the cowards brought when they massacred the Charlie Hebdo staff. The bodies should be disposed of in the manner most likely to guarantee no renewable virgin hookers in the bordello paradise.
Bob says
Make it known any terrorist killed will be buried with a pig. No Paradise then.
gravenimage says
Even having police outside did not stop the massacre.
Rufolino says
I made a point of going to visit the Charlie Hebdo building in Paris a year to the day after the massacre. Very glad I did.
The quiet, civilised office buildings of the neighbourhood, made the barbarism of these Moslem fanatics appear grotesque. Like an eruption from the Stone Age.
The French President was about to arrive to lay a wreath, but I didn’t stick around.
gravenimage says
Thanks for that information, Rufolino.
I visited Ground Zero in NYC in 2003–that visiting the sites of Jihad terror is now a thing is understandable–but also very grim.
curious george says
“We Will Never Give Up”: Charlie Hebdo Republishes Mohammed Cartoons
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16443/charlie-hebdo-mohammed-cartoons
gravenimage says
I bought Charlie Hebdo’s special “Je Suis Charlie” issue after the massacre. A magazine and book shop here special ordered it for people, despite getting death threats for doing so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_issue_No._1178#/media/File:Charlie_Hebdo_Tout_est_pardonn%C3%A9.jpg
toti santiago says
they live to Kill!! that is the purpose of islam – check their quran
gravenimage says
The purpose of Islam is imposing Islam on everyone–and pious Muslims will happily murder people to further that savage cause.
Macmillan says
The Western world doesn’t get it. Thessalonians 2:10 is definitely falling on deaf ears. Only a monumental 911 repeat will awaken us. I have no optimism at all about the Western worlds’ attention span. Slowly and intently with cool and malevolent ambition they move upon us. I wish for peace but there is none. Today’s adults are so addicted to pleasure that they forget babies while they attend to their pleasures as the infants roast to death in 120-130F automobiles. Do you believe our attention spans are sufficient for self-defense? In God we no longer trust! Schools are satanic by design. No protesting by anyone that Christian history is banned in schools here in a Christian country. No understanding that we accommodate all faiths in America including anti-Christian faith. No reciprocal accommodation in anti- Christian Muslim countries. Why shouldn’t we be destroyed?is the way they see it. We don’t defend anything but our own self-destruction.
Rev G says
Didn’t CH cower and change their pro-freedom views shortly after the attack? Hopefully they are back to sanity.
Christ has been parodied often, Conan Obrien did so regularly. Movies mocking Christianity, and Jews as well, have done well at the box office. The old Greek, Roman, and other Pagan gods have endured being caricatures and made fun of. Note that in these cases it is,the deity itself, or the whole religion being belittled…not just a mere (false) prophet…or is it profit. Muslims need to get over it, or get a new religion.
Isabella van der westhuizen says
A lot has happened since 2015. Back then I did not really know much about Islam and to be honest I thought t was a bit of bad form for a magazine to insult a religion. I felt that as a Catholic I had had to put up with all sorts of blasphemy and I felt it was unfair that people of religion had to accept all this in good cheer. the 2015 attack started me thinking and reading and eventually I found this blog and began to understand the danger of Islam. Since that time many people like myself have come to realise the massive threat posed by Islam. I do think things have changed. We have seen so many Jihad attacks as well as ISIS. The cartoonists who died were ahead of all of us and people like Robert Spencer have been saying this for years. I think a lot of people now understand the massive threat posed by Islam to free societies
revereridesagain says
Isabella, I am an Objectivist — that is a secular philosophical system with a strong and rational moral code — and have been atheist since I was 17. So for about 60 years now I have put up with Christian disdain at how morally lacking I am to not believe in invisible supernatural beings who snap their fingers and universes spring into life, human sacrifices for “salvation”, virgin mothers as moral standards for women, etc., — and sanctimonious insistence that I “don’t understand”. I have also been expected to “accept al this in good cheer”. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t.
What keeps me sane is that Christians never try to force their beliefs on anyone. Somehow up the centuries it set in that the Inquisition and heretic burnings were wrong, and no matter how much you are offended by someone not believing in your religious mythologies you may not physically attack them or interfere with their right of freedom of thought and expression. Our Founders understood that this is truly sacred and protected these rights in our Constitution.
This is a great accomplishment and it’s why our country is not Iran, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia or some other hellhole where disbelief is punished by death.
Muslims understand none of this. Their religion orders them to punish “blasphemy” with murder. ‘Insults” to Allah and child-rapiing Mohammed are to be punished by death. The Muslim who commits the most grisly murder of a “kafir” receives a holy reward of 72 renewably virgin-ized whores in a paradise of silk pillows and peeled grapes. This to be treated with “respect” as a “Great World Religion”. People who refuse to do so risk being slaughtered like farm animals in their workplaces by the kind of savages that CAIR and the rest of the Islamic world hold in such high esteem. That is what makes the religion of Islam a plague upon this earth.
And that is why it is so bracing to read this: “We will never lie down. We will never give up,” its director Laurent “Riss” Sourisseau wrote in an editorial to go with the republication of the cartoons in its latest edition.
With the West threatening to go under to Marxist and Islam, every act of defiance is precious.
mortimer says
The ‘good life’ is the continual search for the ‘good life’.
Dave from San Antonio says
True Christians never try to ‘force’ any of their beliefs on anyone. If the chance presents itself…we will share the Gospel and leave it to the individual to decide, whether right then or later. It’s a free choice and never forced. Like a farmer, we just plant the seed and hope for growth. We ‘do’ speak against immorality, as all moral people should do. Most Christians are non-violent, but there are those of us who ‘will’ defend our families, ourselves and those who cannot defend themselves and we will do what we must to accomplish this. Christianity and what it is, got more than a little twisted during the the ‘Inquisition’, which, at the time, resembled islam more than Christianity. Islam, though, is an evil that must be stopped.
James Lincoln says
revereridesagain says,
“So for about 60 years now I have put up with Christian disdain at how morally lacking I am to not believe in invisible supernatural beings…”
That is very unfortunate – and totally uncalled for. But not all Christians are like that.
I am a devout Christian who has no problem with an Objectivist / atheist who is a good person, follows the Golden Rule, and leaves me alone about my Christianity…
FYI says
The Golden Rule is a pretty good rule.
I used to be an ardent atheist and i can tell you that atheists can be completely irrational and unreasonable:I used to have to deal with ludicrously unreasonable militant atheists like the one who told me he wanted to punch God in the face:but that is not atheism.That is just being angry about God!
{Banning ALL religion is not a reasonable option either as some insist:all religions are different}
Most reasonable atheists of my acquaintance would be sensible enough to differentiate between the authentic Jesus Christ of the Gospel and phoney clergymen.
Here is something that might surprise atheists.
The Golden rule is formally defined as follows:
“Do for others what you want them to do for you.This is the MEANING of the Law of Moses and of the teachings of the prophets”
Matthew 7 v 12
I had not known that until I read the Gospel myself on my own:it is clearly in Judaism and Christianity.
And yet it is not formally identified in islam.If the Golden Rule is defined as “the meaning of the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets” its absence in islam speaks volumes.It implies ‘allah’,the author of the koran, has no concept of “the meaning of the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets”:allah cannot be the Biblical God.
Wellington says
Well stated, James. And, in my experience, most Christians I have come across, not all of course, are very flexible in how they argue their belief system, regularly allowing for significant disagreement and without any physical threat, contra Mo followers. In fact, even those few fanatical Christians here and there I have encountered over the years, have never posed a physical threat to me, contra again Mo followers aplenty.
Besides, no one can really be objective. Even compiling a mere chronology of the past is itself subjective because one is deciding what is important to put in and what can be left out. When it comes to an actual historical tome, never mind far more tendentious religious works, subjectivity increases exponentially even if every precaution is taken, as great historians regularly have, to be as objective as possible.
Objectivity is the ideal. A minimum of subjectivity by the best of people is the optimal result. In every walk of life. Bar none.
gravenimage says
Great exchange!
Linde Barrera says
To revereridesagain- Your belief system is protected under the US Constitution, and I thank God for that!
While I defend your right not to believe in God, no atheist has ever satisfactorily explained to me what is the purpose of life on planet Earth, and why so many people suffer, whether they believe in God or not. So I get the feeling that atheists believe that all life is just a random event and we will all go to that “Black Hole” in the sky upon death. Not very comforting! And also not based on anything that Jesus Christ, God Incarnate taught.
Be well, stay safe.
Wellington says
I am encouraged, Isabella, when I read a comment like yours. Yes, more and more in the West are coming to realize just how terrible Islam truly is. Will it be soon enough? The skeptical optimist in me says it will be. Better be.
There’s no way around it. Mankind ended up with a major religion which is also a totalitarian ideology and rotten to the core. Pretending otherwise, and many still do pretend, is exceedingly foolish and dangerous.
In any case, good to know that you now know the true nature of the worst religion of all time, with respect to its duration, the sheer number of deluded people who follow it, and the many malevolent directives in it like death for apostasy (e.g., Sura 4:89) and the sanctioning of rape (Suras 4, 23, 33 and 70). No other major religion has garbage like this in it. But Islam does. Stay safe, Isabella.
gravenimage says
+1
Mauricio says
It is so good to know that they did not surrender to fear and became slaves. Long live Charlie Hebdo and it’s cartoonists! Go on and never give up! You are showing yourselves victorious on the account of the blood of the freedom of speech martyrs! Hooray!
Mauricio says
I just realized that Charlie Hebdo is from the far left and that they are blasphemous in general so maybe they are not that good after all. I may have exaggerated my previous statement. Sorry.
Lavéritétriomphera says
The satirical journal makes no concessions to anyone (including the left-wing parties).
In France the blasphemy law, of sinister memory https://secularseasons.org/july/barre_day.html, was repealed in 1789.
gravenimage says
Alas, Charlie Hebdo *did* back down after the massacre.
Sadly, this was pretty understandable.
Lavéritétriomphera says
@Gravenimage,
Bonjour
They did not. They were determined to republish Muhammad cartoons. They were awaiting the opportunity.
However, we would not disagree with that: two concepts of the civilization are clashing today.
Amitiés
gravenimage says
Lavéritétriomphera–with all respect–the editor of Charlie Hebdo, “Riss”, did indeed say this back in 2015:
“No more Mohammed cartoons, says Charlie Hebdo editor”
The editor of Charlie Hebdo has said that cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed will no longer be published by the French satirical magazine, six months after 12 people were killed in an attack on its Paris offices by Islamist gunmen.
https://www.france24.com/en/20150721-charlie-hebdo-editor-no-more-prophet-mohammed-cartoons
As I said, I did understand this, given what they had gone through.
I’m also glad that he has since reconsidered.
But we should not pretend that this did not happen.
Lavéritétriomphera says
Bonjour gravenimage,
Front-page of Charlie Hebdo on 14 January 2015:
“I wrote ‘All is forgiven’ and weeped, we (finally) did it, we created this fucking ‘front-page news’”.
That weekly paper which showed Muhammad brandishing a placard that said “I am Charlie” was drawn up by the cartoonist Luz who explained that Muhammad was “First of all, a man who was crying”.
https://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2015/01/12/a-quoi-ressemblera-le-prochain-charlie-hebdo_4554645_3236.html.
Amitiés
gravenimage says
Whatever their politics Charlie Hebdo has the right to print its non-violent cartoons.
Mauricio says
No one should blaspheme.
No one should apply death penalty for blaspheme.
Blaspheme is a problem between the person who does it and God.
Lavéritétriomphera says
@Mauricio,
Define the blasphemy.
gravenimage says
Mauricio wrote:
No one should blaspheme.
………………….
So you think that no one should criticize the horrors of Islam–that we should not dare say that the “Prophet” Muhammed was wrong for marrying a child, raping captives, enslaving victims, and mass slaughtering unbelievers? Because that is blasphemy in Islam.
I think that any decent person *should* condemn these horrors.
FYI says
“mocking muhammed”
1]The most ridiculous aspect of muhammed is that he had a winged magical flying donkey called Buraq which is usually depicted as having a woman’s face.
Flying around up in the clouds on a magical creature nobody saw.
Is ridiculing Buraq,muhammed’s imaginary mythical beast needlessly “poking the flying donkey”?
2]muhammed ate meat he knew was poisoned and ended up dying from its effects a few agonizing years after and thus we see muhammed was a moron and the architect of his misfortune.
To add insult to injury,he was poisoned after eating a meal cooked by a Jewish woman whose family he had wiped out:muhammed hated Jews and taught that women were stupid.And the great ‘prophet’ didn’t see any of that coming…
“Oh Aisha.I STILL feel the pain caused by the food i ate at khaibar and at this time I feel as if my AORTA is being cut from that POISON”
Sahih Bukhari 4428
The AORTA statement is significant because according to the koran{64:11} and koran {69:43-46}only a FALSE prophet would suffer that fate.Only someone who suspected he was a false prophet could be the one to say that.
According to the Bible muhammed was a FALSE PROPHET{Deuteronomy 18:20}
muhammed was a Mass-murderer of Jews{Abu Dawud 4390}
According to the koran muhmmed was a FALSE PROPHET{koran 69:43-46,koran 64:11}
He satisfies allah’s criterion.
According to his own admission muhammed was a FALSE PROPHET
“I have fabricated things against God and imputed to him things he has not said”
{al tabari 6:111}
According to his “prophecies”{like the world would end 100 years after he died} he is a FALSE PROPHET
muhammed cannot be a prophet in a Biblical sense as he is not from the Children of Israel{even allah confirms the prophethood was given to the Children of Israel koran 45:16} and besides,allah is NOT the YHWH of the Bible.muhammed is not in the Bible:he is not even qualified to be there.
Dave from San Antonio says
The most ridiculous aspect of muhammed is…muhammed.
FYI says
@Dave from San Antonio
Agreed.
Buraq is a close second.
Third?
Well,muhammed the ‘perfect’ man didn’t exactly look like Hercules according to one eyewitness{Abu Dawud 40:4731}
{That one really annoys muslims along with the following..
Sahih Bukhari 5:58:236 muhammed deflowering a 9 year old girl
Musnad Ahmad 16245 muhammed sucking a little boy Hasan’s tongue
Sahih Bukhari 54:7:2442 muhammed wearing Aisha’s dress when channeling ‘allah’
Sahih Bukhari 1:5:268 muhammed the polygamist}
Join the dots…these are authentic sources and that ‘fiddle the Arabic’ trick won’t work thanks to the internet and Arabic speaking ex/non-muslims{atheists etc}
muslims find it hard to believe their own sources say these things about Perfect Mo.
But then islamic ‘scholars’ and clergy have been lying to them for …CENTURIES.
What can we say about the great ‘prophet’ muhammed?
muhammed was a fat,cross dressing,polygamous,pederast midget who had a magical winged flying donkey .
On top of that it appears he was the most obvious FALSE PROPHET.
The internet is islam’s Nemesis:you cannot hide this stuff about muhammed and the HOLES in the koran anymore.
mortimer says
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS *USELESS* UNLESS IT IS ACTUALLY USED … WE MUST PERIODICALLY TEST THAT RIGHT TO ENSURE WE STILL POSSESS IT !
CHARLIE HEBDO commented in NYT
“…the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.” – Ross Douthat, NYT, January 7, 2015
Re Charlie Hebdo…the right to blaspheme includes defending its practice
1) On the one hand, religious extremists should not threaten people who offend their beliefs. But 2) on the other hand, nobody should offend their beliefs. (So), the right to blasphemy should exist but only in theory. (Liberals) do not believe religious extremists should be able to impose censorship by issuing threats, but given the existence of those threats, the rest of us should have the good sense not to risk triggering them.
The line separating these two positions is perilously thin. The Muslim radical argues that the ban on blasphemy is morally right and should be followed; the Western liberal insists it is morally wrong, but should be followed. Theoretical distinctions aside, both positions yield an identical outcome.
The right to blaspheme religion is one of the most elemental exercises of political liberalism. One cannot defend the right without defending the practice.
– Jonathan Chait, Daily Intelligencer, January 7, 2015
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
rubiconcrest says
“— but because there was a need for a good reason to do it, a reason which has meaning and which brings something to the debate.…”
————-
The answer to the question of, when it’s appropriate to challenge those who would take your basic rights away is, now! Oppose tyranny while you still can. Waiting is deadly. Why mock the powerful? We must oppose tyranny before it’s too late.
Lavéritétriomphera says
In France everyone has the right to criticize rulers, the president, to blaspheme … A caricature is not a hate speech …
“tomorrow we will remember” all who “were cowardly slaughtered” Macron said about Charlie Hebdo https://actu.orange.fr/politique/charlie-hebdo-emmanuel-macron-defend-de-nouveau-la-liberte-de-blasphemer-magic-CNT000001sUYa5.html.
OTTER says
If any Muslim applies for entry in the United States he must be asked to draw a cartoon of MOHAMED. If he does not he should be immediately deported.
This cartoon must be drawn over and over again. It must be plastered outside mosques.This is the only way that they must be taught to be civilized.
Jake Cade says
Muslim barrows would attempt to draw a cartoon–they are all liars! The appropriate number of Muslim barrows in a civilized country is ZERO!
Linde Barrera says
To OTTER-Muslims are taught that the creating of any human image is not something that good Muslims pursue. This means any drawn, painted or sculpted human image. Even a photograph is not to be taken or displayed in one’s or office.
Dave from San Antonio says
“To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”—Voltaire
The quote is debated, sometimes, over who actually said it, but I’ll use Voltaire.
Walter Sieruk says
Those Charlie Hebo jihad murder attacks are are a tragic and terrible reminder of that jihadist who had committed his murderous attacks in the French city of Strasbourg last December was indeed most heinous Even before this Strasbourg Muslim terrorist attack there were those vicious ISIS jihad attack and those brutal murdering Islamic terror attacks on November 13,14 2015 and then that Nice, France jihad murdering jihad attack on July 14, 2016 in an ISIS audio recording broadcasted on September 2014 declared “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European especially the spiteful and filthy French …kill him in any manner or way however it may be.” [1]
This alone exposes the vicious and malicious way of thinking of the jihadist who composes ISIS. The result of this wicked mindset where those heinously malice – filled jihad mindset was carried out by those by those Islamic jihadist deadly attacks in Paris and Nice.
Furthermore the jihadists of ISIS sure have some gall calling the French “spiteful” since it’s the jihadist ISIS thugs who are so very spiteful that they murder people in many extremely cruel ways. Likewise, the ISIS savages have some gall calling the French “filthy” Since it’s the ISIS jihadist villains who the ones who are so lawless and vile that the kidnap and rape both girls and women.
It’s only a matter of time before there will be further jihad attacks in France. It’s not if but when another violent and deadly Islamic terror attack or attacks will happen again.
[1] THE ISIS CRISIS by Charles Dyer Page 44
La Plume de Maat says
Macron just said during is trip in Lebanon that blasphemy is a right in France and that he will allays defend it.
gravenimage says
Well, this is surprising and very good to hear.
Lavéritétriomphera says
@Gravenimage,
Bien à toi
From what I have seen, French political class certainty agrees that the journalists of Charlie Hebdo are within their right to use freedom of speech.
Amitiés
gravenimage says
Very glad to hear this!
Martin says
Egypt’s Al-Azhar slams Charlie Hebdo for Mohammed cartoons reprint
Egypt’s highest Muslim authority Al-Azhar on Wednesday condemned French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo’s decision to reprint cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, as the trial opened over the subsequent 2015 terror attack on its Paris office.
“The insistence on the CRIMINAL ACT to republish these offensive cartoons embeds hate speech further and inflames the emotions of faithful followers of religions,” Al-Azhar’s Observatory for Combating Extremism said on its Facebook page.
[…]
Al-Azhar, also considered the foremost religious institution for Sunni Muslims, said the contentious decision to reprint the caricatures was “an unjustified provocation of the emotions of nearly two billion Muslims around the world”.
https://www.france24.com/en/20200902-egypt-s-al-azhar-slams-charlie-hebdo-for-mohammed-cartoons-reprint
==================================================
Al-Azhar Observatory condemns Charlie Hebdo’s republishing of offensive cartoons of Prophet Mohammad
Al-Azhar Observatory for Combating Extremism expressed on Wednesday its ‘full rejection and strong condemnation’ of the decision by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo’s to republish ‘offensive’ cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad again.
In an official statement, the observatory said the magazine’s “insistence on the CRIMINAL ACT of republishing the offensive cartoons fuels hate speech and inflames feelings between followers of different religions.”
It charged that the magazine’s move is “an unjustifiable provocation of the feelings of around two billion Muslims globally.”
It added that this decision impedes global efforts led by major religious institutions aimed at establishing dialogue between religions, as exemplified in the signing of the Document of Human Fraternity between Al-Azhar’s Grand Imam Ahmed Al-Tayeb and Vatican’s Pope Francis in February 2019.
The observatory’s statement came hours after Charlie Hebdo republished the offensive cartoons of the Prophet, which made them the target of a January 2015 deadly terror attack by Islamist gunmen that left 12 people killed and 11 injured, including famous cartoonists.
[…]The front cover of the new issue of Charlie Hebdo features 12 original offensive cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, originally published in 2005 in a controversial Danish newspaper before being featured in Charlie Hebdo on the eve of the 2015 attack on their offices.
[…]The observatory called on the international community to take a firm stance against attacks on Muslim’s beliefs and symbols.
“The policy of double standards in dealing with religious followers and TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THE CRIMES OF THE FAR RIGHT will only bring to humanity more hatred, extremism and terrorism,” it said.
Hebdo history of offensive cartoons
The satirical magazine had published offensive cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad on several occasions in the past two decades, sparking anger among Muslims worldwide.
It first reprinted the Danish cartoons in 2006 then led with a controversial cover in November 2011 that led to a firebomb attack that year on its headquarters.
A Paris court rejected in 2007 a case filed by Islamic French groups accusing the publication of inciting hatred against Muslims.
Charlie Hebdo had also published other offensive cartoons of Prophet Mohammed in September 2012 and later ran a mocking cartoon biography of the Prophet in January 2013.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/379163/Egypt/Politics-/AlAzhar-Observatory-condemns-Charlie-Hebdos-republ.aspx
Rarely says
Freedom of Speech is irrelevant if it doesn’t include the ability to be offensive.
Charlie Hebdo certainly pushed that to the extreme. Many of its cartoons took aim at islam, Christianity or Judaism and, in the process, often being tasteless (to say the least). Many people would be offended and, one could easily argue, justifiably so. The clear intention was to shock and offend. Few of the cartoons I saw could be classified as “funny” or even as “fair comment”.
In no way does any of that justify that horrendous attack. The knee-jerk violent intimidating reaction to anything which muslims feel offended by (however justified that feeling may be) MUST be countered and be brought under control or we will soon find ourselves stepping off the sidewalks to let them pass. How? I don’t have the slightest idea.
gravenimage says
You don’t have to like everything Charlie Hebdo does–I don’t necessarily–to fervently defend their right to print what they want.
Rarely says
I don’t accept that anyone has a right to print whatever they want. There are many reasonable restrictions and they differ from country to country. There is no blanket right to print whatever one wants except perhaps in Greenland, the Falklands and Outer Mongolia.
gravenimage says
As long as it is not inciting violence, in a free country this in indeed a right.
How is banning criticism of a creed “reasonable”?
Rarely says
I didn’t suggest a ban would be reasonable.
gravenimage says
Good to hear, Rarely.
Roz Chatt says
Everyone knows it’s OK and even edgy to insult Christians and you can get away with nasty comments about Jews/Israel/Zionism by providing some vague apology. So that proves we have some semblance of freedom of speech left. Just don’t insult the Muslims, they’ll kill you. If I were a moderate Muslim living in France today I’d be embarrassed by that.
ELI says
“can get away with nasty comments about Jews/Israel/Zionism by providing some vague apology.”
Nope, people got fired for a cartoon about Netanyahu. Once someone deems something anti-semitic it’s the end of the road.
Curiously, not a peep out of jihadwatch in protest. In fact, the defenders of freedom of speech always make an exception here for some strange reason.
Rarely says
Not “when someone deems something anti-semitic” but when something IS Anti Semitic.
Anti Semitism is not some vague concept that Jews are overly sensitive to criticism and somehow above it.
I imagine that a cartoon of Netanyahu could be Anti Semitic. I would like to see the cartoon and/or your source.
ELI says
“I imagine that a cartoon of Netanyahu could be Anti Semitic. I would like to see the cartoon and/or your source.”
Of course I will share my source but I guarantee it won’t make a lick of a difference. People on here have double standards on this issue. The most ardent defenders of free speech will make a complete U-turn on their position regarding said speech if anyone linked to Israel or judaism is targeted.
https://www.cufi.org/new-york-times-acknowledges-publishing-cartoon-with-anti-semitic-tropes/
It’s amazing to watch in a way.
curious george says
ELI says
“can get away with nasty comments about Jews/Israel/Zionism by providing some vague apology.”
Nope, people got fired for a cartoon about Netanyahu. Once someone deems something anti-semitic it’s the end of the road.
Curiously, not a peep out of jihadwatch in protest. In fact, the defenders of freedom of speech always make an exception here for some strange reason.
…………………………………..
An article from the left leaning New York Times? Would that same newspaper or any left leaning newspaper, magazine or TV Network dare to show something like that about Islam or Muhammad?
Where is the evidence that people “got fired for a cartoon about Netanyahu? And, if so, what were the circumstances?
ELI says
Here is the requested evidence
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-cartoonist-sacked-after-netanyahu-drawing/1151404
How many of the defenders of free speech on here will condemn firing someone over a cartoon? All of them
How many of the defenders of free speech on here will condemn firing someone over a cartoon linked to israel, jews or judaism? None of them
It’s amazing to watch
gravenimage says
Does ELI have any problem with savages massacring non-violent cartoonists? Not so he says…
ELI says
GI making up fake posts that never existed. This is the only way you know how to argue.
gravenimage says
I noted that ELI has not actually condemned Muslims slaughtering cartoonists–and he *still* has not done so. How is this factual observation “making up fake posts”?
Mauricio says
I would have wished Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists to have been fired instead of having been shot to death.
gravenimage says
You believe that they should have been fired for daring to draw something that Muslims don’t like? How is crushing freedom of speech a good thing? How does our being prevented from criticizing Islam make things better?
Kepha says
The comments here have me thinking. Does Charlie Hebdo’s decision to reprint the cartoons that got a lot of their people killed indicate that elements of the Left are awakening to the danger posed by Islam. I’ve long thought that the Left is more interested in tearing down the West rather than defending freedom, and I’ve seen the silencing of conservative voices on campus or by corporate media as a danger sign. Yet, I cannot close my eyes to the Left remaining the side that has deliberately dumned down our civilization until we were left wide open to one of the most openly predatory movements in history.
gravenimage says
Charlie Hebdo republishes Muhammad cartoons as trial of Muslims who murdered because of them begins
……………….
Kudos to “Riss”!
I know that Charlie Hebdo stopped publishing any material critical of Islam after the massacre there. Understandable but highly unfortunate.
OTTER says
Let’s get our values straight here for the record. The left and Muslims should be asked to state:
I agree that it is the right of Muslims to murder over a cartoon of Mohammed.
The point is, don’t simply justify. Affirm it as a principle if you believe in it, all you leftists and Muslims.
Ask CAIR to make a statement on whether they think US citizens have the right to draw Mohammed and burn the Quran under US law.
Robert Spencer: Please write an open letter to them.
Suchindranath Aiyer (@Suchindranath) says
It would be good if Jihad Watch reproduced the cartoons here for us to see.
gravenimage says
Here’s their spoof issue on Shari’ah:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eg3HXFfXkAUlH0a.png
The word balloon translates to “100 lashes, if you ain’t laughing out loud”.
There are others, of course.
Giacomo Latta says
We, the West, need to be the bear that reacts whenever it is poked by those who wish to suppress our rights and freedoms either de jure or de facto by means of terrorism.
Mauricio says
Thank you and Graven for your responses. Blaspheme: the act of insulting God.
gravenimage says
Exposing the horrors of Islam is not “insulting God”–why pretend I said any such thing?
Moreover, I stand for freedom of speech in any case. I do not agree with everything that Charlie Hebdo has ever published, but it is of vital importance that they and others are allowed to criticize–and poke fun at–any creed they want.
Mauricio says
Gravenimage, you misunderstand, misinterpret and exaggerate my messages in awful ways… I am not sure if that is your part of the job: to keep people with challenging knowledge and ideas away from this website. Your extensive and tireless reviews of my messages are nothing else but a trample in the foot of freedom of expression. If I continue posting comments on this website, I will ignore yours.
gravenimage says
Mauricio can claim that I supposedly misunderstood what he was saying–but note he does not say what he actually meant. Very telling…
And how is my challenging his calling for “blasphemers” to be fired prevent his freedom of expression?
Like so many, Mauricio wants to shut down other’s freedom of expression, yet claims that at any challenge to his claptrap is somehow preventing him from posting, which is clearly not the case.
This is what is known as projection.
Lavéritétriomphera says
@Mauricio,
Define (your) God.
Mauricio says
God is defined through Sacred Revelation which is a wider topic that I am not planning to discuss here. I will just tell you: God is not allah. Allah is a man created idol.
Lavéritétriomphera says
@Mauricio,
Salutation
I respect your faith, but in France as in the whole free world the crime of blasphemy doesn’t exist. It’s your business if you believe in a sacred revelation.
As far I am concerned the physical and spiritual laws are independent from our will. In short the World is a sphere even if some believe the planet is flat. An afterlife could exist whatever atheists think.
Religion and philosophies are man-made, and they are attempts to explain natural laws -universal/cosmic laws- with varying degrees of success. My opinion.
That is what happens when zealots are in power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marguerite_Porete.
Bien à vous
Mauricio says
@laveritetriomphera,
I never supported any blasphemy “law”, I just said that no one should blaspheme, followed by “no one should be killed because of a blasphemy”. I invite you to check the worldly percentage of atheists so that you can understand why I believe atheists should respect believers instead of believers respect atheists. Believers in general outnumber atheists. This, of course, does not include criticizing religions that are a threat to others (like islam).
gravenimage says
greed, Lavéritétriomphera. Protecting freedom of speech is of the utmost importance.
And no one should have to respect a group just because they are outnumbered. This sounds more like a threat than cause for respect.
Lavéritétriomphera says
Bonjour gravenimage,
“And no one should have to respect a group just because they are outnumbered. This sounds more like a threat than cause for respect.“.
+1
I am trying to tell strangers that French are still affected by the religious wars and the absolute power. The kings and the catholic Church were all-powerful. Poaching on the royal domain could be subject to a severest punishment, even (at one time) by death penalty. Religious authorities were accused of collusion with the political power.
We will not re-open the debate on the abolition of the privileges, on the illegitimacy of the blasphemy law, on secularism, on the freedom of expression and on the liberty of the press.
The Islamic system is totalitarian and a threat to freedom at all levels.
Amitiés
Lavéritétriomphera says
@Mauricio,
Silent is consent.
Mauricio says
@Lavéritétriomphera,
I understand that silence is consent but I don’t have enough time to be able to refute the long reviews that Gravenimage is writing down to me just because she misunderstands almost everything I write. I have to use my eyes a lot at work and they become wearisome.
Thanks for your comments anyway.
Lavéritétriomphera says
Bonsoir Mauricio,
I invite you to study the concept of “believer”.
Communism is an atheist ideology. Like Muslims who worship Baal/Molech, communists worship a bloodthirsty, man-made, god that is called dictatorship of the proletariat. Blasphemy, heresy and apostasy exist in the totalitarian communist system. The justice is swift as sharia and the dissidents are persecuted. Both are sinister mystics.
We have really bad memories of the holy inquisition, the religious wars. For instance in the The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, the Seine river was blood-red https://www.google.com/search?q=saint%20barthelemy%20murders%20&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m. We also remember the all powerful Catholic Church and … the blasphemy law, Nazism.
Peace upon you, your family, your country and the World.
À bientôt
Mauricio says
Lavéritétriomphera:
The concepts of “God” and “believer” may give a lot to talk about, specially when sinners are always distorting and profaning the Truth. Besides, people like you seem to only focus on bad things done by all those who somehow relate to religion and spirituality, while putting aside every good deed out of it. I have enjoyed this exchange with you, but surrounded by deformed concepts, ideas and facts we will never end this conversation. Therefore, I have determined not to write anything else on this post. Jesus is “laVérité” and at least we both believe that la vérité triomphera.
Lavéritétriomphera says
Bien à toi Mauricio,
Tu es un homme courageux but you are not French. One doesn’t escape the history of his country.
Indeed we agree: La Vérité Triomphera (Verum semper triumphat).
I would be please to exchange views with you. There other subjects apart from this conversation.
Amitiés
Kepha says
While I agree, Mr. Latta, I fear that the first people who need to meet the roused bear are many of our own politicians, judges, cultural figures, and clergy (and I say this as a believing Christian).
OLD GUY says
Disrespectful to muslims and it hurts their feelings. How sad to hurt their feelings as they go about killing, raping, and terrorizing non-islamic people around the world. Talk about disrespectful, the daily terrorist acts of these animals is outrages but the world media ignores those stories.
There should be no respect for the cult hateful followers of Muhammad. This “religious” Ideology is nothing but a dictatorship wanting to control the world, they make Hitler look like small potatoes.
This fight will get down to the total destruction of us or islam. Evil is sticking its head up again in this world, and the islamic head needs to be cut off.
Mafya says
I am so afraid, Old Guy. The world is increasingly islamizing. This evil cult could be destroy the humankind with its degenerate beliefs and the inhumane sharia. It destroyed many beautiful civilizations, cultures and peoples before. As you wrote “This fight will get down to the total destruction of us or islam” I aggre with you.
Valkyrie Ziege says
; Yes, the French, can, and do, rock-‘n’-roll! We need comedy bacause comedy helps us deal with grief process. The reason Muhammadanism hates comedy, and murders comedians, is that without comedy, it’s easy to talk someone whom is suffering from grief process into being a suicide-bomber/martyr.
gravenimage says
I very much take your point about the importance of humor, Valkyrie. But I don’t believe that many Jihadists carry out terrorism because they are suffering grief–it is more that they want their victims and their loved ones to suffer grief.