Charlie Hebdo posts inflammatory cover after Barcelona attacks

You forgot the Koranic view (and the Koran is perfect to all Moslems, of course) that non-believers are lower than even the lowest animal. Now, if that isn't worse than what white supremacists think I don't know what is.

I think that is fundamentally the reason why Islam will continue to be such an issue. The Old Testament contains plenty of nasty bits, but there's no binding decree that all Christians must resolutely cling to every word of the bible. Christians are free to say that these stories aren't true, aren't to be taken as true and instead are either parable (and so not to be taken literally) or outdated and so no longer apply.

Muslims have no such wriggle room. It's a core tenant of the religion that the Qur'an is Allah's word and Allah's will, as transcribed by Muhammad. So Muslim's can't really say that anything in the Qur'an is wrong, or even that it's wrong for today, because doing so is to say that Allah is wrong, which is blasphemy.

Reply 81

username2981082

19

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

The theory of doing that is simple, but in practice it would be very difficult because Muslims would resist that change with every ounce of strength they have. The change will happen eventually mind you, but it'll probably occur over many generations.

Over generations? When some Muslims still continue to believe in killing homosexuals and women not being allowed to go out alone, I think it would take two centuries for Islam to ever become acceptable in democratic countries.

Reply 82

Osiris Wintereisse

14

Original post by Command&Conquer

The change has to come from them though and not from us. I personally don't see the religious leaders in Saudi Arabia or some other prominent Muslim country changing the Quran at all.

How do you think this change would occur?

Sadly, I don't think it would occur. Reformists have always had it the worst throughout the history of Islam.

The three fundamentals of Islam, namely that it is 1. final, 2. perfect and 3. immutable would mean that reform would completely negate the most important tenets within Islam. It speaks volumes that the buffet pick Ismaili sect of Shia Islam are considered apostates...

Reply 83

diana24

5

Muslims are free to express how they don't like homosexuals and atheists. Others should be free to express how they don't like Islam.

Reply 84

PTMalewski

20

Original post by Mathemagicien

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-barcelona-attack-cartoon-islam-violent-inherent-controversial-french-satirical-a7910786.html

Hate speech or free speech?

What do you think?

Original post by Retired_Messiah

Ooooh now that one's very spicy

The magazine editor is right in saying that hard questions are being avoided, but there's probably a better way of asking them

Not far from this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxNmCL2UWaA

You can't tell joke about the muslims. I mean you can, but they'll kill you.

Good critical joke. An irony is a challenge for for idea, that doesn't exactly tell you want to think.
Charlie Hebdo is a hard humoristic magazine, I don't see anything inappropriate i the cover. Everybody knows, or should know, that jokes are not to be taken too seriously or too strict, because a degree of inaccuracy often makes part of a joke.

Also, remember that whole editorial office of Charlie Hebdo was shot by some radical muslims, just because they felt offended with Hebdo's jokes. They have a perfect right to make such jokes, because they depicted what actually happened to them.

Reply 85

Chichaldo

21

Couldn't put it better myself: "I love the Islam that I've*been taught. I denounce its vile appropriation*by*terrorists who use it for their own purpose. I respect the freedom to caricature everything."*

Although I do not find this funny and just deem it disrespectful. But they should be allowed nevertheless

Reply 86

PTMalewski

20

I think it's better to be 'disrespected' by a good joke, rather than being disrespected by 'serious' newspapers printing inaccurate and shallow information every day.

Reply 87

Plantagenet Crown

20

Original post by Command&Conquer

The change has to come from them though and not from us. I personally don't see the religious leaders in Saudi Arabia or some other prominent Muslim country changing the Quran at all.

How do you think this change would occur?

The Quran doesn't exist in a vacuum and changes will thus come from both the Muslim and non-Muslim community. I predict it will just be a general change where humankind (especially the West), will become so progressive and accepting that the Quran in its current form will simply not be able to survive without modernising.

Reply 88

Ninja Squirrel

20

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

The Quran doesn't exist in a vacuum and changes will thus come from both the Muslim and non-Muslim community. I predict it will just be a general change where humankind (especially the West), will become so progressive and accepting that the Quran in its current form will simply not be able to survive without modernising.

So do you think it might be banned or something? I mean if what you say is true that we become so accepting and progressive then surely that means we will become even more accepting of the quran and the Islamic way of life?

Reply 89

Plantagenet Crown

20

Original post by Dr Strange

Alienating a majority for the actions of a minority is discrimination.

We are perfectly within our rights to criticise an ideology. The "majority" taking issue with it isn't our problem and it certainly shouldn't cause alienation. Christians have had their faith mocked to heaven and back for centuries, yet no one would consider them an alienated minority. What alternative do you propose, that we not be allowed to criticise and scrutinise Islam?

^In your opinion. It's important to remember that the vast majority of the 1.8 billion Muslims on this planet don't belong to any terrorist organisation.

What you are doing is declaring the 'true form' of Islam on the basis of violent acts committed by a sample that isn't even 0.01% of the total Muslim population.

As I said above, all religion has more than one interpretation. Those who latch onto the least popular of those in order to classify the religion as a whole are opportunists.

No one is generalising all Muslims, we are speaking about the ideology here, not the people.

Reply 90

Plantagenet Crown

20

Original post by Command&Conquer

So do you think it might be banned or something? I mean if what you say is true that we become so accepting and progressive then surely that means we will become even more accepting of the quran and the Islamic way of life?

No, tolerance cannot be tolerant of intolerance, otherwise that leads to anarchy and more intolerance. A future West will not tolerate discrimination against LGBT people, ethnic minorities etc. and so will not tolerate or accept hateful, divisive ideologies such as Islam as it is currently widely practised.

I don't think any ban will occur, it will just get to a point where Muslims will start ignoring the more violent bits of the Quran, similar to what Christianity has gone through.

Reply 91

Plantagenet Crown

20

Original post by constantine2016

Over generations? When some Muslims still continue to believe in killing homosexuals and women not being allowed to go out alone, I think it would take two centuries for Islam to ever become acceptable in democratic countries.

Well yes, many many generations, I didn't mean just one or two.

Reply 92

Ninja Squirrel

20

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

No, tolerance cannot be tolerant of intolerance, otherwise that leads to anarchy and more intolerance. A future West will not tolerate discrimination against LGBT people, ethnic minorities etc. and so will not tolerate or accept hateful, divisive ideologies such as Islam as it is currently widely practised.

I don't think any ban will occur, it will just get to a point where Muslims will start ignoring the more violent bits of the Quran, similar to what Christianity has gone through.

That's a good point actually about the tolerance cannot be tolerant of intolerance. As it stands at the moment the majority of the muslims in the west don't go around killing people or attacking certain people, I think you'd agree? However we do have a reasonable portion which have are very verbal but don't act on it, then we have the few who do act on it.

So no matter what I think the muslims who refuse to take part in the violent parts of the quran or whatever else is already at a significant amount, this however won't be taken into account when the next attack happens and the next attack etc because it will still be written in the quran and in other Islamic literature.

Even if there wasn't an attack for 100 years, the moment there is one, it will be "the religion of peace" argument again because the book itself has not changed. Muslims can and have changed a lot over the years from the 7th century but the book has remained unchanged.

Essentially what I'm getting at is as long as the quran says x and y, it will always be blamed as the fuel for those attacks. Sorry if I'm waffling I'm a bit drunk :biggrin:

Reply 93

Iridocyclitis

10

Original post by Dr Strange

Alienating a majority for the actions of a minority is discrimination.

Alienation is felt by someone rather than given by another. What you are describing are people who make themselves feel alienated because someone criticises some of the tenets of an ideology they subscribe to, rather than them directly. That does not sound very reasonable to me, especially if that particular tenet is not something they agree with anyway.

Reply 94

username2393237

21

Original post by Dr Strange

They have every right to say that, for they don't follow a violent interpretation of the religion.

Alienating a majority for the actions of a minority is discrimination.

^In your opinion. It's important to remember that the vast majority of the 1.8 billion Muslims on this planet don't belong to any terrorist organisation.

What you are doing is declaring the 'true form' of Islam on the basis of violent acts committed by a sample that isn't even 0.01% of the total Muslim population.

As I said above, all religion has more than one interpretation. Those who latch onto the least popular of those in order to classify the religion as a whole are opportunists.

How are Muslims being alienated? Many seem to like closed communities, so they are alienating themselves if anything. Cartoons and parodies are made about the Christian God (and everything else under the sun), so why should Muslims be exempt? That is a much better question. They can say whatever they want, yet are a protected class. Criticising Islam itself does not amount to harassment and this should be fair game in a democratic and civilised society.

The violent acts are committed by a small percentage, but who actually funds those acts and how many support them? A significant percentage of Muslims support the idea of sharia law being implemented here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html) and there are already sharia courts in the UK. The courts treat women like lesser beings and effectively supercede the law here, even though they aren't supposed to.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 95

QE2

20

Original post by lukey67791

The Old Testament contains plenty of nasty bits, but there's no binding decree that all Christians must resolutely cling to every word of the bible. Christians are free to say that these stories aren't true, aren't to be taken as true and instead are either parable (and so not to be taken literally) or outdated and so no longer apply.

Another important issue is that many Christians believe that the OT barbarity was abrogated by Jesus in the NT.
The closest Islam has to this are teachings of Mirza Ahmad. Unfortunately, rather than adopting the rather more peaceful approach of the Ahmadiyya, Islamic consensus is that they are blasphemous apostates, and they are condemned and persecuted by most Muslims.

Muslims have no such wriggle room. It's a core tenant of the religion that the Qur'an is Allah's word and Allah's will, as transcribed by Muhammad. So Muslim's can't really say that anything in the Qur'an is wrong, or even that it's wrong for today, because doing so is to say that Allah is wrong, which is blasphemy.

Indeed. While many Muslims in the west are happy to condemn ISIS and call them "un-Islamic" for using female captives as slaves, they will refuse to condemn the Quran and Muhammad for explicitly permitting it.

Reply 96

QE2

20

Original post by diana24

Muslims are free to express how they don't like homosexuals and atheists. Others should be free to express how they don't like Islam.

Apparently not.
Promoting the execution of gays, apostates and adulterers, sex slavery, wife-beating, etc, is legitimate religious belief and must have a safe space where it can be expressed without challenge.
Challenging people for promoting it is Islamophobic bigotry.
At least on TSR, anyway.

Reply 97

VinalV

8

Oh Yay the birth of a flame thread. Let me grab that popcorn and shower you with my sweet sweet internet love.

Reply 98

QE2

20

Original post by Dr Strange

They have every right to say that, for they don't follow a violent interpretation of the religion.

That's a bit like voting Tory and then claiming NHS cuts are "not in my name".

The Quran and sunnah explicity allow the use of female captives for sex.
They cannot claim "Islam is perfect" and at the same time, claim that some elements are unacceptable!

Alienating a majority for the actions of a minority is discrimination.

But the issue isn't only with the minority who actually act on the entire contents of the Quran and sunnah but also with those who provide tacit support by claiming that the entirety of the contents are perfect and acceptable.

If people feel alientated because of peoples reactions to their claim that gays and apostates should be killed and female captives can be used for sex, that is their problem, not the people who are apalled by such claims!

^In your opinion. It's important to remember that the vast majority of the 1.8 billion Muslims on this planet don't belong to any terrorist organisation.

No. Islam is inherently violent, oppressive and discriminatory. It's all there in black and white. Many millions of Muslims do not behave in a violent, oppressive and discriminatory way, but that is because of the society in which they live and their own personal morality, not because of Islam - or because they follow a sanitised, cherry-picked version of Islam.

What you are doing is declaring the 'true form' of Islam on the basis of violent acts committed by a sample that isn't even 0.01% of the total Muslim population.

This is the point. There is no "true form of Islam". The Quran and sunnah are often ambiguous and contradictory. However, what is clear is that contains many passages permitting or instructing violence, oppression and discrimination against those who refuse to submit to Islam, and that any peace, tolerance and equality applies essentially to those who do submit.

As I said above, all religion has more than one interpretation. Those who latch onto the least popular of those in order to classify the religion as a whole are opportunists.

It's not about popularity. It's about legitimacy.

A simple example.
The Quran and sunnah explicitly allow the use of female captives for sex.
Which is the more legitimate interpretation of Islam, the one that accepts this permission or the one that rejects it?

Reply 99

Iridocyclitis

10

Original post by Mathemagicien

An ideology that is *central* to their being. To many muslims, Islam means more to them than their own children - just ask an ex-muslim.

Can't really treat it like just another political belief system, it is much more central to their identity.

The flaw with that logic being that there are many Muslims who are "Muslim" by description alone and do not care too much about the ideology, yet there are also many people who believe in non-religious ideologies, such as veganism or political beliefs, which are absolutely fundamental to their lives.

Charlie Hebdo posts inflammatory cover after Barcelona attacks

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you