Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Je Suis Charlie

charliehebdo.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 292 posts

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#241

Post by yongjik »

waps wrote: post #217
Jayd2014 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Muslim here. > the moderate muslims are often rather quiet. Yes we are. But there are a few reasons for that: 1- First, Muslims can't be put in one group, there is 1.6 billion muslims worldwide with hundreds of different views and levels of tolerance. 2- Most of them don't have time or are too busy with their daily life. Think about the % of people who go vote every four years in a democracy. 30% maybe 50% at max v…

The problem is that the terrorists are right about islam. So what do you think about your prophet doing the same ? Are you also ashamed of that ? He had the mother of 5 children murdered for opposing him. As you (should) know, this is far from the only instance of such action by "the prophet". I am sorry but unless you wholeheartedly condemn this kind of killing, whoever did it, your gesture means little. If you don'…

He only had one killed? What a modest man, by biblical standards.

For comparison:

> He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.

(Not to mention killing all the firstborns of Egypt, wiping out the entire population of the Earth except for Noah's family, yadda yadda.)

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#242

Post by waps »

Jayd2014 wrote: post #220
waps wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the terrorists are right about islam. So what do you think about your prophet doing the same ? Are you also ashamed of that ? He had the mother of 5 children murdered for opposing him. As you (should) know, this is far from the only instance of such action by "the prophet". I am sorry but unless you wholeheartedly condemn this kind of killing, whoever did it, your gesture means little. If you don'…

Well since you are asking about typing it in google. I actually did. Here is what comes as an answer from the muslim side[1]: A member on my blog, brother "zulfiqarchucknorris", sent me the following information: Peace Dear Osama Abdullah I would like to inform you that on the many articles about the "poet killings" (specifically asma bint marwan) you fail to to include why the asma bint marwan chain for ibn saad is…

And does this answer satisfy you ? Answering-christianity (the site) is full of these sorts of answers. Most are similar to this one.

The technical answer to this reply is, firstly, that the same story is told by different narrators, not just the one mentioned. This is, of course, conveniently left out from the reponse you posted.

But if you're not a muslim, the answer is that this is part of the islamic canon. It's also part of sharia. It's part of the law in >50 islamic countries. If the argument held any water this would not be true.

> Copy pasting doesn't help anyone. I'd rather have it that you go to someone who is an expert on this field, do your research and ask him/her what's bugging you.

Sorry I was trained in exact sciences, and I have family that's in history (with focus on religious history). I believe in first sources' authority over people's authority.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#243

Post by cbd1984 »

_almosnow wrote: post #240
cbd1984 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terroristic threats are already illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat Again, though, that's things similar to "I'm going to bomb your store" or "I have placed a hidden explosive near your offices" or similar; things that, even if they're false, cause other people to have to take them seriously and waste time and resources. In short, a terroristic threat doesn't insult someone, it makes that person…

About the terrorist threats, I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? or does the immediate violence threat has to be something implicit within the published message. Btw, thanks, those examples are awesome.

> I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication?

If they made a specific and credible threat to cause death, bodily harm, or serious property damage if someone published something, yes, I think that would qualify as an illegal terroristic threat under the law.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal...

Note that threatening to picket or boycott or otherwise protest isn't a terroristic threat. The threat has to be about something in the specific list I mentioned above.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#244

Post by waps »

sehr wrote: post #221
waps wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe he meant from the perspective of muslims. That answer is here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan This is what makes this so difficult : muslims killing because of negative opinions on islam is something that is sanctioned by the religion, and that was practiced for over 15 centuries now. A very uncomfortable question is what muslim children in the west are taught on this question. I'm…

IIRC there are a lot more different sects of Islam then there are/have ever been of Christianity. Painting over a billion people with that broad a brush seems disingenuous to say the least.

There are no sects of islam that don't accept the prophet's actions as holy and unconditionally right. There are only differences about what those actions were, famously whether he appointed Ali as caliph or not (that's the difference between sunni and shi'a islam). All schools except one are part of all sects, all sects share all hadith, just not all hadith interpretations (they, and their many addendums and rewritten versions -very roughly- correspond to what is meant by a "school"). This is part of the islamic canon, which as I said is shared by all sects. Frankly, if this isn't in a sect, nobody would call them an islamic sect, but something else (example : the Baha'i, which originate from within islam, but nobody seriously considers muslims, merely because they disagree that the actions of the prophet were the "final" authority on morality. Their claim is that moral authority is to be found in any number of individuals, and that muhammad's teachings (especially the more insane ones) can and have been overridden. For this, there is a standing death penalty for any Baha'i that gets caught in >20 muslim countries. This mostly to illustrate that the vast majority of muslims accept the Bint Marwan story as moral authority, and that dozens of muslim countries consider it reasonable to execute people for not doing so).

I would also like to point out that killing for insults to islam is quite popular amongst muslims, even in the west. And frankly, we can't realistically tolerate even 1% of them having this opinion (because it'll lead to events like the Hebdo ones).

But even in general you're wrong "in practice". There are 2 islamic sects worth mentioning : sunni islam (~82%) and twelver shi'a (~13%). Yes the remainder has a million sects but, they're outlawed and persecuted in islamic nations, and their numbers are tiny.

Furthermore, given that Christianity is both older and much richer in spread (meaning it's spread in more varied cultures), much larger number of adherents, and variety (many Christian sects in single locations), so I'd be extremely surprised if there were more offshoots of islam (unlike islam, Christianity seems to leave older cultures mostly intact. Comparing South America with Indonesia, for example. In Indonesia, the old culture is completely erased. This makes regional branches of Christianity have their own identity, and leads to offshoots, whereas the violent repression that islam historically was spread by did not exactly promote diversity)

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#246

Post by tach4n »

kbarre123 wrote: post #239

There's nothing to discuss, really. I'm not going to convince you. You're not going to convince me. Steve's not going to convince Akbar, and Akbar's not going to convince Omkar. Nobody's ever read an internet comment and thought, "Holy shit, @deeznutz420 is right. My religion IS a total crock of shit! Well I'll be..." What happened is terrible. It'll happen again, and no amount of pontificating or "nation-building" o…

> "Holy shit, @deeznutz420 is right. My religion IS a total crock of shit!

Actually that happens all the time - the reverse happens too of course.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#247

Post by schoen »

cbd1984 wrote: post #230
_almosnow wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fighting words and offensive speech.

Those are extremely narrow categories. You pretty much have to scream obscenities in someone's face and get punched for it right after for those categories to apply to something you said.

Yes, the fighting words doctrine requires that the fighting words be communicated in person to a particular person (not in a newspaper).

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#248

Post by schoen »

cbd1984 wrote: post #243
_almosnow wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About the terrorist threats, I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? or does the immediate violence threat has to be something implicit within the published message. Btw, thanks, those examples are awesome.

> I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? If they made a specific and credible threat to cause death, bodily harm, or serious property damage if someone published something, yes, I think that would qualify as an illegal terroristic threat u…

I think the parent commenter's question was whether it would be illegal to publish something that was the subject of a credible terrorist threat, not to make a credible terrorist threat. You addressed whether people are allowed to make threats (no) rather than whether the government can use the threats as a reason to prevent the thing that is the target of the threats (generally also no).

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#249

Post by dang »

waps wrote: post #217
Jayd2014 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Muslim here. > the moderate muslims are often rather quiet. Yes we are. But there are a few reasons for that: 1- First, Muslims can't be put in one group, there is 1.6 billion muslims worldwide with hundreds of different views and levels of tolerance. 2- Most of them don't have time or are too busy with their daily life. Think about the % of people who go vote every four years in a democracy. 30% maybe 50% at max v…

The problem is that the terrorists are right about islam. So what do you think about your prophet doing the same ? Are you also ashamed of that ? He had the mother of 5 children murdered for opposing him. As you (should) know, this is far from the only instance of such action by "the prophet". I am sorry but unless you wholeheartedly condemn this kind of killing, whoever did it, your gesture means little. If you don'…

Please do not conduct religious flamewars on Hacker News.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#250

Post by mti »

majestic1211 wrote: post #191
DanBC wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it okay to print shitty zero-value cartoons that are anti-Muslim[1] but not print shitty zero-value cartoons that are anti-Jew or anti-other-minority? [1] and these cartoons are anti-Muslim, pushing ignorance and bigotry.

Charlie Hebdo is not anti-Muslim. It is a satiric paper, and hits on everyone, including Muslims. No one had a special treatment with them. Source : Am french, and actually read the Charlie Hebdo. You can also check here, for example : http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-in...

A few years ago, Charlie Hebdo fired cartoonist Siné over a relatively innocuous joke about Jean Sarkozy (the son of then president Nicolas Sarkozy) planning to convert to judaism in order to marry into the family of the founders of supermarket chain Darty. Siné's quip was basically a direct quote of a comment by Patrick Gaubert (a personal friend of Nicolas Sarkozy's and the president of LICRA at the time) but since he had added a sarcastic bit to the effect that the young boy would have a bright future, Charlie Hebdo's editor-in-chief decided that it was an unacceptable display of antisemitism and could put the newspaper at risk of lawsuits. Therefore Siné had to be let go.

That's only one example for sure, and things may have been a bit different after Philippe Val left, but I don't think it's fair to say that Charlie was even-handed in the way it targeted its gushes of vitriol, and even less so that they were principled champions of freedom of speech. Like most French people across the whole political spectrum, they were stauch supporters of speech-they-agree-with.

None of this detracts from the horror of what has happened of course. I just thought I would mention that the popular "uncompromising beacon of freedom" narrative might be a bit too simplistic.

Post reply on HN