Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad • Hacker News Board

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#281

Post by rikacomet » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:29 PM UTC

mathetic wrote: post #205

rikacomet wrote: post #95

First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam. But, if I were to take the liberty to express my own opinion, I would say honestly, I think both parties were at wrong here. First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted a finger or even wish…

As a an atheist, who spent nearly all of his life in a country with 99% Muslim population, I do not understand how people who live in such society and got an education defend the religion. >> First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam. First of all, this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Islam, after Christianity, has the bloodiest history we know. The only reason it…

First of all, this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Islam, after Christianity, has the bloodiest history we know. The only reason it is the second biggest religion is because it expanded by violent conquers. Even in the off chance that the host is being decent, they imposed so much regulations on non-Muslims that they would end up converting. So this is exactly what Islam is.

>> Let me put it this way. There are only a couple of hundred thousand/million of people who follow Bahai Religion. Can they have the bloodiest history? Both Christianity and Islam, are among top 3 in terms of people who follow a religion. Of course with nearly half the planet following Islam and Christianity, if people stand up for the right things, they will end up with a bloody history. (In no way I support violence, but what I say is for the sake of the argument).

No one who has laid their eyes on Qur'an can say that. It is very explicit about how you need to treat non-Muslims. I don't know where the entire notion of "personal affair" came from.

>> And I agree with you, Islam specifically says that Non-Muslims are to be treated with respect and dignity. As you say, no man who has laid eyes on Quran can claim that such terrorism is justified.

Who says so? Who is the divine power that decides on what satire is too much in the absolute scare?

>> Who says it is too little? Which Divine power will decide it is too much or too little?

It is free in the Western world for women not to wear head scarves, drive and have sex with whoever they want, by extension of this logic would it be okay for woman to go to Saudi Arabia and do any of these things?

>> Is this in someway becoming, tell me what Islam is? If you have questions, about "What Islam actually says", then go read a genuine English Translation of Quran.

No, you don't get it. Objectively France is the better society here. I am half-french and I can criticise France on various issues for many hours but it is insulting to do a comparison between France and a "serious" Muslim country.

>> You seem to have a delusion about "Serious" Muslim Country. No one can clearly say which country is better. Isn't it peaceful to say all religions are good, all countries are good? Which side are you really on? Of a peaceful mindset or I want to work out my issues about Islam on HN?

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#282

Post by ptaipale » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:29 PM UTC

rikacomet wrote: post #145

anoonmoose wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"both parties were at wrong here"..."it is a kin to playing with their feelings"..."such mishaps happen"..."the level of satire in question here, was perhaps too much". Honestly, I can't help but come away feeling that what you're saying is that what Hebdo did was so wrong on their part that they should have seen it coming and it is their own fault.

did I not condemn the attack, and clearly said that at max they should have been ignored, it was after all only satire.

It's the "but" part which makes me think you really don't.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#283

Post by enneff » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:29 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #276

enneff wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly zero content.

>Nearly zero content >They may have decided to preface their article with this message because they feared retaliation by zealous Muslims who would not otherwise expect to see a depiction of Muhammad in the Guardian. Seems like content to me.

It was a two line "me too" when I posted that reply.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#284

Post by olavk » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:29 PM UTC

fafner wrote: post #35

olavk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western Christianity certainly haven't left violence behind. Just take the christian terrorist Anders Brevik who killed 80 people in Norway.

Breivik isn't a Christian terrorist. He described himself as not being overly religious. He is also very critical of modern (I think that's what's meant by Western here) Christianity, both in the Church of Norway and Catholicism.

Muslim terrorists in general are also in opposition to mainstream Islam. They are extremists, just as Breivik is an extremist.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#285

Post by resonantcore » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:30 PM UTC

enneff wrote: post #283

gizmo686 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nearly zero content >They may have decided to preface their article with this message because they feared retaliation by zealous Muslims who would not otherwise expect to see a depiction of Muhammad in the Guardian. Seems like content to me.

It was a two line "me too" when I posted that reply.

No it wasn't, that full sentence that was quoted had been there since before the first edit.

You may not like what was said, but please do not engage in dishonesty.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#286

Post by Killah911 » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:33 PM UTC

A very interesting cover. I was thinking about drawing a cartoon: a bunch of Muslims sitting around saying "I hate freedom soo much!..."

Note this wouldn't be satirizing Muslims, but rather the fact that we rush to draw these comical worldviews even in the face of such tragedies.

Let's just label it Radical Islam & call anyone that doesn't agree with our definition of "values" a Radical. The Islamic world is in deep shit, not necessarily because of the west. Meaningful change often isnt even a remote possibility in many of these places. The "extremists" are just another group vying for power and legitimacy in a dystopian Muslim world & something like Charlie Hebdo is a PR opportunity.

Religious injunctions aside, what makes criticizing Islam is not just the beliefs that some hold. What makes it dangerous is you're likely painting a target on your back. They won't take on the U.S. army, or the seriously oppressive armies of dictatorships. A journalist, celebrity etc is a great opportunity.

It's not fucking about free speech, unless you believe in a comical worldview where you depict what doesn't match your worldview as I did earlier. The cartoons are funny. I'm all for freedom of speech. But our principles don't make ground realties any different. We should think of the fact that at least we have the luxury of having principles.

In principle, nobody should rob me while I'm going walking down the street. But it's a whole different thing if it's in a rough neighborhood & I'm standing out like a sore thumb.

What happenned was wrong, and my heart goes out to all who are directly involved. And I mean that (A close family friend was recently shot by a deranged lunatic on a shooting spree, leaving him permanently disabled). The violence is senseless and irrational.

Let us them not rationalize it away with a little bias thrown the other way. It's not what I expect on HN. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking it was about freedom of speech. Yes, it has caused fear. Which is why I thought the cover was interesting. It's saying to us: we are not afraid & it's not hurling hate back with a message of forgiveness, which is atypical in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

Surprisingly Charlie Hebdo's cover is more thoughtful & less comical than the inane chatter of people saying "why do they hate us". And that is Brilliant. Alas this attempt at communication is probably lost on a majority of the Muslim world. In truth, everyone wants freedom. Let's take a second to think about what's really at play here.

For the perpetrators of these acts like to win, it requires us to becomes irrational & start becoming hateful and shortsighted. Let's not give in to that

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#287

Post by pakled_engineer » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:35 PM UTC

Joeboy wrote: post #190

aNoob7000 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. This is the kind of response that these extremists want. There should be no topic off limits when it comes to satire and public commentary. The minute we start making exceptions then we start losing control of the conversation/discussion to those that want to control what can and cannot be said. As a Catholic, I watched many cartoons lampooning our priests, pope, and Jesu…

> I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. This is the kind of response that these extremists want. I can't see that response anymore because HN doesn't believe in freedom of speech, but I do find the question of the killers' motives very interesting. The general reaction seems to be to straightforwardly accept the idea that it was a violent, dumb reprisal over cartoons they saw as blasphemous. I can't help but…

Terrorist's goals are to drive a wedge between societies so they can exploit the fallout for recruiting and support. It's like when car bombs go off in front of holy shrines in Iraq, the terrorists want reprisals to happen so they can operate in the violence and fanaticism that erupts after. Somewhere are people who helped planned the Paris attacks who are dismayed the French public didn't immediately firebomb all visible mosques in revenge to spark chaos.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#288

Post by xcode_ » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:35 PM UTC

chroma wrote: post #255

xcode_ wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think no religion preaches violence, including Islam. Its the followers that have their own interpretations.. Do we relate the acts of Hitler to Christianity?

The only non-violent religions I know of are Jainism and Theravāda Buddhism. The holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all contain passages encouraging their followers to torture, kill, and otherwise harm non-believers. Mainstream adherents followed these directives for millennia. It's taken centuries of conflict with enlightenment values to relegate such views to extremists. After September 11th, I read the…

I've studied Quran too and a bit of comparative religion and nowhere did I find any instance where it preaches violence.

Look on the life of Prophet Muhammad for instance (you'll find plenty of non-Muslim accounts on His life that are non-biased) never you'll find any instance where he punished someone just because he ridiculed him.

Forget about prophet, just when Europe was going through the dark ages and Muslims were building knowledge cities in Spain etc. There were departments specifically reserved for scholars to come and discuss and question each other's religion! It's part of our history books, and a fact.

What we're seeing today is some radical Muslims dominating the majority and just because they have taken up guns people have started associating violence with Islam.

Do you know that the most number of people that have suffered from these extremists are infact Muslims themselves? I'll urge you to dig this further :)

p.s "Islam" when translated to english means Peace. Do I need to say any further?

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#289

Post by tomp » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:36 PM UTC

_nedR wrote: post #256

tomp wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, I think you're pretty free to criticize the more extremist aspects of Judaism, such as circumcision (yes, they scream "antisemitism", but nobody takes them seriously), the ultra-orthodox political campaigns in Israel (e.g. that men and women should walk on opposite sidewalks). Also, they don't seem to have as many idiotic rules as Muslims (no depictions of Yahweh? or at least I don't know about them, and…

>> I think you're pretty free to criticize the more extremist aspects of Judaism, such as circumcision (yes, they scream "antisemitism", but nobody takes them seriously), Well I don't think many jews, or muslims for that matter (muslims do it too) would be offended by a reasoned criticism of circumcision. It is usually the hot topics like Israeli actions, or depiction of Prophet Muhammad that seems to trigger passion…

There was quite a scandal in Germany recently, when a court ruled that circumcision was illegal, and both Muslims and Jews threw a fit, saying that Nazism is back.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#290

Post by polymatter » Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 2:37 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #73

gbog wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to point out that Far East cultures (China and Japan) do not have the same religious instincts. For them an almighty human-like God who wrote a sacred book is not conceivable. I don't think they can understand what religion and faith represent in the lives of Christian, Jews and Muslims. And unsurprisingly, religious wars have been quite marginal in this part of the world. One could also trace this important…

A very good point. I would argue that these cultures are simply expressing these religious instincts in ways that don't look like abrahamic religions, in the same way that football or rock music don't look like abrahamic religions either. Also, once you blur out the technical theological details, is Confucius not effectively treated as a prophet? (This is a genuine question.)

Confucianism is a religion. No blurring out of technical theological details is required. Confucianism has a holy city, temples where people pray to him, miracles attributed to him, unquestionable holy books and an organization to promote itself. It doesn't lack anything that other religions have so it makes sense to call it a religion.