Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 08.f.poswal)
    Anddd.... just to mention that prphet mohammad (pbuh) came as a mercy to the whole of mankind, not just for muslims. therefore we should all accept ALMIGHTY GOD's final messenger as our prophet. That way there will b peace. God willing.
    If you read up on the characteristics of the holy prophet PBUH you will never have the mouth to critisizse. He was perfect and is an example for us (us the whole of humanity).
    He came with the truth
    If you read a nonpartisan biography of Mohammed that wasn't published by Darussalam, you'd only find more things to criticise.

    (Original post by 08.f.poswal)
    For those of you who do not believe in the next life , in one God and his messengers,,

    what will you do if all this was true???
    What would you do if the true monotheistic god was the Judaistic one and you've only been angering him by following another religion?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    That's true but I think that it's a bit offensive satirising a massacre for a peaceful rally with a dig at the religion.

    Would you do that if our government massacred Catholics, how do you think the likes of Ireland would find that.

    Either way I agree with the cartoons message but it's offensive.
    Plenty of cartoons were drawn on the subject of Ireland, including Bloody Sunday, during the troubles there; many of them critical of the UK government. You should try googling some. Both governments (Irish or British), whether they were offended or not, took the criticism in their stride.

    There seem to be a lot of posters that think the world should guarantee they will never be offended. How naïve.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    Protest against what? Charlie Hebdo are criticising islam, and they have the right to do so. I do not think they are being offensive with this cartoon.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If I criticise Judaic texts by drawing a picture of a starving holocaust victim being shot through a Torah then this is justified as well right?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Plenty of cartoons were drawn on the subject of Ireland, including Bloody Sunday, during the troubles there; many of them critical of the UK government. You should try googling some. Both governments (Irish or British), whether they were offended or not, took the criticism in their stride.

    There seem to be a lot of posters that think the world should guarantee they will never be offended. How naïve.
    Oh and you have the IRA doing bomb attacks so clearly people were pissed off. I completely forgot about bloody sunday tbh so I retract that point.

    Anyway I know the world ain't a utopia and I agree with the message anyway. Some people need to get a hold of themselves.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    If I criticise Judaic texts by drawing a picture of a starving holocaust victim being shot through a Torah then this is justified as well right?
    I believe it is. I'm sure it would offend a lot of people and it would be in poor taste but it would be a perfectly valid criticism of Judaism and the Torah. There is no right not to be offended.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 08.f.poswal)
    b) paradise and hell do exist
    c) If people cant get justice in this world, then it is BOUND to happen in the next world (the world which will be forever and will not last).
    No evidence for either of those things.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I am Charlie in some ways and others I am not.

    I am Charlie because I agree with Voltaire's quote above all. The liberty to criticise and satirise is a cornerstone of Western civilisation.

    The following is why I'm also not Charlie. I must say that I do not like religion's prominence in the UK - I think it was Marx that said that religion enforces social boundaries by keeping the less well-off happy. However, the conflation of mainstream Islam and terrorism is ridiculous. If print and social media show certain trends, a wider agenda takes hold. At the moment, in the West, Islam is under fire, for better or worse, and populism has seen the agenda spiral out of control. Tabloids frequently run scaremongering articles on how over 60% of restaurants in Luton are now halal (made that up) or the presence of mutaween in Bradford (made that up too). The populist line is the following: "Did I offend you? Sorry not sorry, if you don't like it, **** off" and "I'm fed up of these terrorists here". Two sound and valid statements. Nevertheless, they're empty statements. The cultures of Western countries are not likely to suddenly change at the hands of Islam. And what do you propose we do about terrorism exactly that we aren't already doing?

    It's not a chance ' taking offence' that I am concerned about. It is the use of this media to promote and sustain a wider anti-Muslim (anti-Muslims as in the people, not just anti-Islam the religion) rhetoric, which starts on the dangerous path towards persecution. I would still feel uncomfortable if, for example, Alan Sugar was depicted on the front of Viz wearing a kipah or trilby and payot with fistfuls of cash. I respect that staff and readership of Charlie Hebdo can make the distinctions between criticising the fundamentals of Islam and making a Facebook tirade about 'too many Muslims', but others will not.

    If we are reducing everything down though, free speech is the dearer sentiment.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I am not Charlie Hebdo, and for several reasons.

    The first is that the whole 'Je suis Charlie' business seems to me utterly pointmissing. The editorial line of that publication was an opposition to populism and sentimentality, whatever else it stood for there was a real and ultimately very costly sense of personal and moral integrity. And for their martyrdom they were rewarded with celebrity hashtagging, false emotion from carpetbagging twitter*****, and a parade of neoliberal grandees. It's as if the death of Jerry Sadowitz were being marked with a royal variety performance hosted by Ant and Dec. Small wonder that the cartoonist absent from the fateful editorial meeting said this week 'we vomit on our new friends'.

    Another but related point is that a sense of self consciousness that once was very British but disappeared with the death of Diana leaves me embarrassed to say 'I am Charlie'. For the old fashioned reason that I am not, and wasn't and won't be. They were brave and were killed for it, knowing that was a very real risk. My saying now 'I am Charlie' is like announcing myself as Spartacus at the autopsy. I didn't stand with them then and the honest truth is that, like you, I have no intention of carrying on their work. With regard to what would have been the TSR take just last week, I think Spiked has it aright here - http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...3#.VLPSTWM56ik

    And I am not Charlie because even I had the nerve for it I haven't got the appetite; I think their magazine is mostly intellectualised misanthropy, a sniggering that's allowable in the Vth form but wearing in middle-aged men. Oh dear.

    The one thing I share with them perhaps is a sense that nuance is the enemy of tyranny and that trusting that people might allow the possibility of multiple interpretations is better than absolutism. 'Their murder was an atrocity but I am not Charlie' is, then, I feel the best tribute I can offer.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I believe it is. I'm sure it would offend a lot of people and it would be in poor taste but it would be a perfectly valid criticism of Judaism and the Torah. There is no right not to be offended.
    "Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you."
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    If I criticise Judaic texts by drawing a picture of a starving holocaust victim being shot through a Torah then this is justified as well right?
    That's not the same. Muslims are the terrorists, and not the victims. A cartoon of a nazi being shot through Mein Kamf would be justified.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    "Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you."
    I'm not sure that quoting an Al-Jazeera journalist (who was making the case that Charlie Hebdo is an extremist organ, which I would disagree with) without attribution or acknowledgement carries the debate forward in any meaningful way. I defend the right of anyone to be offensive and obnoxious if they judge it to be profitable. I didn't say that I would personally behave in the same way in the same circumstances, or that I would judge it the best strategy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    That's not the same. Muslims are the terrorists, and not the victims. A cartoon of a nazi being shot through Mein Kamf would be justified.
    Jews and Christians are all terrorists.

    Oh no wait, it's only acceptable when it's said about Muslims.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Jews and Christians are all terrorists.

    Oh no wait, it's only acceptable when it's said about Muslims.
    I think you'll find that most thinking westerners not only do not claim that all Moslems are terrorists but will readily condemn terrorism from any quarter, whether it be on behalf of Islamic organisations like ISIS and Al Qaeda, Jewish ones like Bat Ayin Underground or Christian ones (such as the IRA).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    An article by Chris Hedges:

    The terrorist attack in France that took place at the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo was not about free speech. It was not about radical Islam. It did not illustrate the fictitious clash of civilizations. It was a harbinger of an emerging dystopia where the wretched of the earth, deprived of resources to survive, devoid of hope, brutally controlled, belittled and mocked by the privileged who live in the splendor and indolence of the industrial West, lash out in nihilistic fury.

    We have engineered the rage of the dispossessed. The evil of predatory global capitalism and empire has spawned the evil of terrorism. And rather than understand the roots of that rage and attempt to ameliorate it, we have built sophisticated mechanisms of security and surveillance, passed laws that permit the targeted assassinations and torture of the weak, and amassed modern armies and the machines of industrial warfare to dominate the world by force. This is not about justice. It is not about the war on terror. It is not about liberty or democracy. It is not about the freedom of expression. It is about the mad scramble by the privileged to survive at the expense of the poor. And the poor know it.

    If you spend time as I have in Gaza, Iraq, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt and Sudan, as well as the depressing, segregated housing projects known as banlieues that ring French cities such as Paris and Lyon, warehousing impoverished North African immigrants, you begin to understand the brothers Cherif Kouachi and Said Kouachi, who were killed Friday in a gun battle with French police. There is little employment in these pockets of squalor. Racism is overt. Despair is rampant, especially for the men, who feel they have no purpose. Harassment of immigrants, usually done by police during identity checks, is almost constant. Police once pulled a North African immigrant, for no apparent reason, off a Paris Metro subway car I was riding in and mercilessly beat him on the platform. French Muslims make up 60 to 70 percent of the prison population in France. Drugs and alcohol beckon like sirens to blunt the pain of poor Muslim communities.

    The 5 million North Africans in France are not considered French by the French. And when they go back to Algiers, Tangier or Tunis, where perhaps they were born and briefly lived, they are treated as alien outcasts. Caught between two worlds, they drift, as the two brothers did, into aimlessness, petty crime and drugs.

    Becoming a holy warrior, a jihadist, a champion of an absolute and pure ideal, is an intoxicating conversion, a kind of rebirth that brings a sense of power and importance. It is as familiar to an Islamic jihadist as it was to a member of the Red Brigades or the old fascist and communist parties. Converts to any absolute ideal that promises to usher in a utopia adopt a Manichaean view of history rife with bizarre conspiracy theories. Opposing and even benign forces are endowed with hidden malevolence. The converts believe they live in a binary universe divided between good and evil, the pure and the impure. As champions of the good and the pure they sanctify their own victimhood and demonize all nonbelievers. They believe they are anointed to change history. And they embrace a hypermasculine violence that is viewed as a cleansing agent for the world’s contaminants, including those people who belong to other belief systems, races and cultures. This is why France’s far right, organized around Marine Le Pen, the leader of the anti-immigrant Front National, has so much in common with the jihadists whom Le Pen says she wants to annihilate.

    When you sink to despair, when you live trapped in Gaza, Israel’s vast open-air prison, sleeping 10 to a floor in a concrete hovel, walking every morning through the muddy streets of your refugee camp to get a bottle of water because the water that flows from your tap is toxic, lining up at a U.N. office to get a little food because there is no work and your family is hungry, suffering the periodic aerial bombardments by Israel that leaves hundreds of dead, your religion is all you have left. Muslim prayer, held five times a day, gives you your only sense of structure and meaning, and, most importantly, self-worth. And when the privileged of the world ridicule the one thing that provides you with dignity, you react with inchoate fury. This fury is exacerbated when you and nearly everyone around you feel powerless to respond.

    The cartoons of the Prophet in the Paris-based satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo are offensive and juvenile. None of them are funny. And they expose a grotesque double standard when it comes to Muslims. In France a Holocaust denier, or someone who denies the Armenian genocide, can be imprisoned for a year and forced to pay a $60,000 fine. It is a criminal act in France to mock the Holocaust the way Charlie Hebdo mocked Islam. French high school students must be taught about the Nazi persecution of the Jews, but these same students read almost nothing in their textbooks about the widespread French atrocities, including a death toll among Algerians that some sources set at more than 1 million, in the Algerian war for independence against colonial France. French law bans the public wearing of the burqa, a body covering for women that includes a mesh over the face, as well as the niqab, a full veil that has a small slit for the eyes. Women who wear these in public can be arrested, fined the equivalent of about $200 and forced to carry out community service. France banned rallies in support of the Palestinians last summer when Israel was carrying out daily airstrikes in Gaza that resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths. The message to Muslims is clear: Your traditions, history and suffering do not matter. Your story will not be heard. Joe Sacco had the courage to make this point in panels he drew for the Guardian newspaper. And as Sacco pointed out, if we cannot hear these stories we will endlessly trade state terror for terror.

    “It is a sad state of affairs when Liberty means the freedom to insult, demean and mock people’s most sacred concepts,” the Islamic scholar Hamza Yusuf, an American who lives in California, told me in an email. “In some Latin countries people are acquitted for murders where the defendant’s mother was slandered by the one he murdered. I saw this in Spain many years ago. It’s no excuse for murder, but it explains things in terms of honor, which no longer means anything in the West. Ireland is a western country that still retains some of that, and it was the Irish dueling laws that were used in Kentucky, the last State in the Union to make dueling outlawed. Dueling was once very prominent in the West when honor meant something deep in the soul of men. Now we are not allowed to feel insulted by anything other than a racial slur, which means less to a deeply religious person than an attack on his or her religion. Muslim countries are still governed, as you well know, by shame and honor codes. Religion is the big one. I was saddened by the ‘I’m Charlie’ tweets and posters, because while I’m definitely not in sympathy with those misguided fools [the gunmen who invaded the newspaper], I have no feeling of solidarity with mockers.”

    Charlie Hebdo, despite its insistence that it targets all equally, fired an artist and writer in 2008 for an article it deemed to be anti-Semitic.

    Shortly after the attacks of 9/11, while living in Paris and working as a reporter for The New York Times, I went to La Cité des 4,000, a gray housing project where North African immigrants lived in apartments with bricked-up windows. Trash littered the stairwells. Spray-painted slogans denounced the French government as fascist. Members of the three major gangs sold cocaine and hashish in the parking lots amid the burned-out hulks of several cars. A few young men threw stones at me. They chanted “**** the United States! **** the United States! **** the United States!” and “Osama bin Laden! Osama bin Laden! Osama bin Laden!” By the door of an elderly Jewish woman’s apartment someone had spray-painted “Death to the Jews,” which she had whitewashed out.

    In the banlieues Osama bin Laden was a hero. When news of the 9/11 attacks reached La Cité des 4,000—so named because it had 4,000 public housing apartments at the time of its construction—young men poured out of their apartments to cheer and chant in Arabic, “God is great!” France a couple of weeks earlier had held the first soccer match between a French and an Algerian team since Algeria’s war of independence ended in 1962. The North Africans in the stadium hooted and whistled during the French national anthem. They chanted, “Bin Laden! Bin Laden! Bin Laden!” Two French ministers, both women, were pelted with bottles. As the French team neared victory, the Algerian fans, to stop the game, flooded onto the field.

    “You want us to weep for the Americans when they bomb and kill Palestinians and Iraqis every day?” Mohaam Abak, a Moroccan immigrant sitting with two friends on a bench told me during my 2001 visit to La Cité des 4,000. “We want more Americans to die so they can begin to see what it feels like.”

    “America declared war on Muslims a long time ago,” said Laala Teula, an Algerian immigrant who worked for many years as a railroad mechanic. “This is just the response.”

    It is dangerous to ignore this rage. But it is even more dangerous to refuse to examine and understand its origins. It did not arise from the Quran or Islam. It arose from mass despair, from palpable conditions of poverty, along with the West’s imperial violence, capitalist exploitation and hubris. As the resources of the world diminish, especially with the onslaught of climate change, the message we send to the unfortunate of the earth is stark and unequivocal: We have everything and if you try to take anything away from us we will kill you. The message the dispossessed send back is also stark and unequivocal. It was delivered in Paris.

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...essed_20150111
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They've murdered over 2 million people in the last few years and not once have ever moved their fat arses to condemn their disgusting military strategy. Watching that ******* of a man Netanyahu, who kills Palestinians when ever he wants to (most recently over 2000 Palestinians), walk thorough the parade was so hypocritical, where do you even start?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I'm not sure that quoting an Al-Jazeera journalist (who was making the case that Charlie Hebdo is an extremist organ, which I would disagree with) without attribution or acknowledgement carries the debate forward in any meaningful way. I defend the right of anyone to be offensive and obnoxious if they judge it to be profitable. I didn't say that I would personally behave in the same way in the same circumstances, or that I would judge it the best strategy.
    So you would trust a complete strangers judgement, regardless of whether they are operating a sound mind or not?


    Frankly, i find it immature that you would defend someone for being offensive and obnoxious.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesNeedHelp2)
    So you would trust a complete strangers judgement, regardless of whether they are operating a sound mind or not?
    I assume you are talking about someone who publishes a cartoon some people find offensive in order to make a political or religious point.

    Trust? What would I be trusting? The complete stranger has made his decision and is living by it. It doesn't affect me other than to give me something to agree or disagree with and, possibly, to offend me.


    Frankly, i find it immature that you would defend someone for being offensive and obnoxious.
    Why immature? Is doing so a characteristic of the immature? Why not irritating, or offensive, or exasperating, or perverse?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    There are more decent ways to represent religion than dressing like a letterbox.
    since when was wearing a headscarf indecent?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    If I criticise Judaic texts by drawing a picture of a starving holocaust victim being shot through a Torah then this is justified as well right?
    What are people against such satire actually proposing should happen to it? Do you think the cartoonists should have been prohibited and punished by law for what they did?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fsdfsfds)
    They've murdered over 2 million people in the last few years and not once have ever moved their fat arses to condemn their disgusting military strategy. Watching that ******* of a man Netanyahu, who kills Palestinians when ever he wants to (most recently over 2000 Palestinians), walk thorough the parade was so hypocritical, where do you even start?
    Who is they?

    Muslims have been responsible for the murder of the majority of Muslims in the last few years.

    It is odd how you bring up 2000 Muslims being killed by Israeli's when Muslims have killed more Muslims in Syria and etc.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.