terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so back the original issue.

1. Has there been any update on the 3rd gunman from the initial attacks that apparently surrendered? Did he claim he wasn't there, that they had the wrong guy? I have heard anything about him since the first day.

2. Is the woman who was an accomplice in the kosher market situation today still on the lame?

What I have heard....

1. Yes, he claims he wasn’t there, but the authorities are saying this is the guy.

2. Still on the run. I wonder if she will also be rewarded with 72 virgins if she dies????? Makes one wonder.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

and still many think it is blasphemous even just to depict the Prophet .....

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so back the original issue.

1. Has there been any update on the 3rd gunman from the initial attacks that apparently surrendered? Did he claim he wasn't there, that they had the wrong guy? I have heard anything about him since the first day.

2. Is the woman who was an accomplice in the kosher market situation today still on the lame?

Here is a good article about the guy who turned himself in:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/looking-mourad-hamyd

His classmates are pretty adamant that he was in class and quite a distance from Paris when the attack took place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Oh so basically, it doesn't even say in the holy book that depictions are forbidden. The cartoonists died because a bunch of reactionary Imams have been stoking anger and hatred in an entire population of desperate dimwits on the basis of personal opinion. Clergy--you can always count on them to get people killed to further their personal agenda.

"A bunch"?? Try millions. Perhaps a billion worldwide.

Boko Haram
Al Caida
The Islamic State
Hamas - a designated terrorist organization that backs implementation of Sharia law
Radical Chechens who inspired the Boston bombing
Radicals in England who recruited Richard Reid aka the shoe bomber
Radicals in Spain who bombed the Atocha train station
Radicals in Germany who hosted the 9/11 murderers

And dozens of other groups whose numbers total in the thousands, millions. Not to mention their sympathizers who see UBL as some sort of twited hero.

Are these radicals - do you believe they are not here? That they are in far off lands - therefore of no threat? Look where US Major Hasan Nidal was inspired to radicalism: houses of worship in Marland and Virginia. Look who's Imam was killed in a Predator drone strike in
Yemen (that same mosque in Virginia).

Let's be fair here, but also open and accurate:

I believe most of our world's Muslims are decent caring people; as an American I welcome them to come here and enjoy our freedom of religion. All I ask is that they obey our laws and tolerate others as we tolerate them.

But world-wide, radical Islam is not limited to fringe groups; it is a very threatening group with an increasing number of sympathizers.

[Anonymous]

So tired of hearing about this and every other asinine religion. Ban all religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

and still many think it is blasphemous even just to depict the Prophet .....

Saudi Arabia, which has described itself as the “guardian of Islam,” released a statement on Wednesday through its official news agency condemning the attack on Charlie Hebdo as a “cowardly terrorist act” that is “incompatible with Islam.” But on Friday, the government pulled a blogger named Raif Badawi from his jail cell in Jeddah, brought him to a square in front of a mosque, and administered the first phase—fifty lashes—of a public flogging. As with Charlie Hebdo, Badawi’s offense involved the exercise of freedom of expression, often with a touch of sarcasm. He is scheduled to get another fifty lashes every Friday for the next nineteen weeks. He also faces ten years in prison and a fine that exceeds a quarter of a million dollars.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/saudi-whipping?intcid=mod-latest

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

and still many think it is blasphemous even just to depict the Prophet .....

Saudi Arabia, which has described itself as the “guardian of Islam,” released a statement on Wednesday through its official news agency condemning the attack on Charlie Hebdo as a “cowardly terrorist act” that is “incompatible with Islam.” But on Friday, the government pulled a blogger named Raif Badawi from his jail cell in Jeddah, brought him to a square in front of a mosque, and administered the first phase—fifty lashes—of a public flogging. As with Charlie Hebdo, Badawi’s offense involved the exercise of freedom of expression, often with a touch of sarcasm. He is scheduled to get another fifty lashes every Friday for the next nineteen weeks. He also faces ten years in prison and a fine that exceeds a quarter of a million dollars.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/saudi-whipping?intcid=mod-latest

Saudi Arabia grew out of an alliance of Saudi political power and Wahhabi religious authority. Wahhabism is the root of al-Qaida and IS. The Saudi condemnation of the attack on Charlie Hebdo was greater satire than CH could have ever dreamed of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Oh so basically, it doesn't even say in the holy book that depictions are forbidden. The cartoonists died because a bunch of reactionary Imams have been stoking anger and hatred in an entire population of desperate dimwits on the basis of personal opinion. Clergy--you can always count on them to get people killed to further their personal agenda.

"A bunch"?? Try millions. Perhaps a billion worldwide.

Boko Haram
Al Caida
The Islamic State
Hamas - a designated terrorist organization that backs implementation of Sharia law
Radical Chechens who inspired the Boston bombing
Radicals in England who recruited Richard Reid aka the shoe bomber
Radicals in Spain who bombed the Atocha train station
Radicals in Germany who hosted the 9/11 murderers

And dozens of other groups whose numbers total in the thousands, millions. Not to mention their sympathizers who see UBL as some sort of twited hero.

Are these radicals - do you believe they are not here? That they are in far off lands - therefore of no threat? Look where US Major Hasan Nidal was inspired to radicalism: houses of worship in Marland and Virginia. Look who's Imam was killed in a Predator drone strike in
Yemen (that same mosque in Virginia).

Let's be fair here, but also open and accurate:

I believe most of our world's Muslims are decent caring people; as an American I welcome them to come here and enjoy our freedom of religion. All I ask is that they obey our laws and tolerate others as we tolerate them.

But world-wide, radical Islam is not limited to fringe groups; it is a very threatening group with an increasing number of sympathizers.

In apopulation of a billion, those are a tiny fraction of a percent.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Oh so basically, it doesn't even say in the holy book that depictions are forbidden. The cartoonists died because a bunch of reactionary Imams have been stoking anger and hatred in an entire population of desperate dimwits on the basis of personal opinion. Clergy--you can always count on them to get people killed to further their personal agenda.

You are missing the point if you think the cartoonist died because of imams rulings or because of the cartoons. There are lots of underlying issues that are being ignore as if these events happened in a vacuum.

Ostensibly, the horrific attack against Charlie Hebdo in Paris was because of the publication’s satirical images of the Prophet Muhammad.
But to view the assault as simply about images of Muhammad is to accept a long-standing narrative about Muslim sensitivity to portrayals of Muhammad, which plays into conceptions of Muslims as superstitious savages.Just as important, arguing that this attack is about free speech misses what may be the attackers’ true motivation, which is to wreak havoc and destruction.

Regarding images: Muhammad is a powerful symbol for Muslims. The Quran calls him a “beautiful role model,” and he is considered to be the most perfect Muslim.

Charlie Hebdo has a right to publish whatever it wants. At the same time, the material was racist. It did not matter if the images were going after Muslims, blacks or Jews; it was always about reinforcing racial and religious hierarchies. In a country where women’s headgear is legislated, religious expression is curtailed and a former prime minister calls minorities “scum,” what Hebdo does seems like bullying.
In no way is there any justification for violence against the paper. However, this is a community that sees itself as besieged. What the attackers are attempting to do is capitalize on that feeling. They provided a sense of revenge and power.
It would not be surprising to find out that they hope to create an overreaction against Muslims, both at official and popular levels. This type of response would allow the extremists to create a larger pool for recruiting members and drive the larger Muslim community to feeling even more alienated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/why-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-is-not-about-images-or-free-speech-commentary/2015/01/08/3b058c10-9778-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html

[Anonymous]

No amount of "underlying issues" can ever justify mass murder just because of a cartoon.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Oh so basically, it doesn't even say in the holy book that depictions are forbidden. The cartoonists died because a bunch of reactionary Imams have been stoking anger and hatred in an entire population of desperate dimwits on the basis of personal opinion. Clergy--you can always count on them to get people killed to further their personal agenda.

You are missing the point if you think the cartoonist died because of imams rulings or because of the cartoons. There are lots of underlying issues that are being ignore as if these events happened in a vacuum.

Ostensibly, the horrific attack against Charlie Hebdo in Paris was because of the publication’s satirical images of the Prophet Muhammad.
But to view the assault as simply about images of Muhammad is to accept a long-standing narrative about Muslim sensitivity to portrayals of Muhammad, which plays into conceptions of Muslims as superstitious savages.Just as important, arguing that this attack is about free speech misses what may be the attackers’ true motivation, which is to wreak havoc and destruction.

Regarding images: Muhammad is a powerful symbol for Muslims. The Quran calls him a “beautiful role model,” and he is considered to be the most perfect Muslim.

Charlie Hebdo has a right to publish whatever it wants. At the same time, the material was racist. It did not matter if the images were going after Muslims, blacks or Jews; it was always about reinforcing racial and religious hierarchies. In a country where women’s headgear is legislated, religious expression is curtailed and a former prime minister calls minorities “scum,” what Hebdo does seems like bullying.
In no way is there any justification for violence against the paper. However, this is a community that sees itself as besieged. What the attackers are attempting to do is capitalize on that feeling. They provided a sense of revenge and power.
It would not be surprising to find out that they hope to create an overreaction against Muslims, both at official and popular levels. This type of response would allow the extremists to create a larger pool for recruiting members and drive the larger Muslim community to feeling even more alienated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/why-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-is-not-about-images-or-free-speech-commentary/2015/01/08/3b058c10-9778-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html

mass murder has nothing to do with "underlying issues". It is mass murder. that's it. there is no justification. do you understand that?

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Oh so basically, it doesn't even say in the holy book that depictions are forbidden. The cartoonists died because a bunch of reactionary Imams have been stoking anger and hatred in an entire population of desperate dimwits on the basis of personal opinion. Clergy--you can always count on them to get people killed to further their personal agenda.

You are missing the point if you think the cartoonist died because of imams rulings or because of the cartoons. There are lots of underlying issues that are being ignore as if these events happened in a vacuum.

Ostensibly, the horrific attack against Charlie Hebdo in Paris was because of the publication’s satirical images of the Prophet Muhammad.
But to view the assault as simply about images of Muhammad is to accept a long-standing narrative about Muslim sensitivity to portrayals of Muhammad, which plays into conceptions of Muslims as superstitious savages.Just as important, arguing that this attack is about free speech misses what may be the attackers’ true motivation, which is to wreak havoc and destruction.

Regarding images: Muhammad is a powerful symbol for Muslims. The Quran calls him a “beautiful role model,” and he is considered to be the most perfect Muslim.

Charlie Hebdo has a right to publish whatever it wants. At the same time, the material was racist. It did not matter if the images were going after Muslims, blacks or Jews; it was always about reinforcing racial and religious hierarchies. In a country where women’s headgear is legislated, religious expression is curtailed and a former prime minister calls minorities “scum,” what Hebdo does seems like bullying.
In no way is there any justification for violence against the paper. However, this is a community that sees itself as besieged. What the attackers are attempting to do is capitalize on that feeling. They provided a sense of revenge and power.
It would not be surprising to find out that they hope to create an overreaction against Muslims, both at official and popular levels. This type of response would allow the extremists to create a larger pool for recruiting members and drive the larger Muslim community to feeling even more alienated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/why-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-is-not-about-images-or-free-speech-commentary/2015/01/08/3b058c10-9778-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html

mass murder has nothing to do with "underlying issues". It is mass murder. that's it. there is no justification. do you understand that?

Of course there is no justification, but there is an explanation ~

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Oh so basically, it doesn't even say in the holy book that depictions are forbidden. The cartoonists died because a bunch of reactionary Imams have been stoking anger and hatred in an entire population of desperate dimwits on the basis of personal opinion. Clergy--you can always count on them to get people killed to further their personal agenda.

You are missing the point if you think the cartoonist died because of imams rulings or because of the cartoons. There are lots of underlying issues that are being ignore as if these events happened in a vacuum.

Ostensibly, the horrific attack against Charlie Hebdo in Paris was because of the publication’s satirical images of the Prophet Muhammad.
But to view the assault as simply about images of Muhammad is to accept a long-standing narrative about Muslim sensitivity to portrayals of Muhammad, which plays into conceptions of Muslims as superstitious savages.Just as important, arguing that this attack is about free speech misses what may be the attackers’ true motivation, which is to wreak havoc and destruction.

Regarding images: Muhammad is a powerful symbol for Muslims. The Quran calls him a “beautiful role model,” and he is considered to be the most perfect Muslim.

Charlie Hebdo has a right to publish whatever it wants. At the same time, the material was racist. It did not matter if the images were going after Muslims, blacks or Jews; it was always about reinforcing racial and religious hierarchies. In a country where women’s headgear is legislated, religious expression is curtailed and a former prime minister calls minorities “scum,” what Hebdo does seems like bullying.
In no way is there any justification for violence against the paper. However, this is a community that sees itself as besieged. What the attackers are attempting to do is capitalize on that feeling. They provided a sense of revenge and power.
It would not be surprising to find out that they hope to create an overreaction against Muslims, both at official and popular levels. This type of response would allow the extremists to create a larger pool for recruiting members and drive the larger Muslim community to feeling even more alienated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/why-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-is-not-about-images-or-free-speech-commentary/2015/01/08/3b058c10-9778-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html

mass murder has nothing to do with "underlying issues". It is mass murder. that's it. there is no justification. do you understand that?

Of course there is no justification, but there is an explanation ~

sorry, what? are you kidding me? Do you even understand what you just said? i mean, wow.

[Muslima]

Yes, I totally understand what I said. Explanation vs Justification....

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:Yes, I totally understand what I said. Explanation vs Justification....

ok, got it. So I guess we're done here then.