terrorist attack in Paris

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.

There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.

However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.

And I agree with you that they shouldn't be killed for it. Btw what I posted was in the words of my friend, not mine. I personally think some of their cartoons were distasteful and many angered lots of folks. Should they be killed for it? Of course not!

While some of the cartoons may be viewed as distasteful, others who didn't view it in that light should be allowed their freedoms of preference. I personally feel strongly about that. Anything else is tantamount to book burning or prevention of anyone to reading a book or any kind.

I agree with you that people have the right to publish whatever they want, say whatever they want, ect but such rights should also come with good judgment. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should, sometimes it just makes you look like an a**. If we want to live in a better world, we all have to make a conscious effort to be aware of each others sensibilities, beliefs, rights, wrongs, ect.

Muslima, while I mostly agreed with your posts so far, I strongly desagree with this. you seem to imply that the journalists should have somehow censored themselves, and did something wrong what they published what you defined before as "filth" (I strongly desagree with your judgemnt on CH's work also). but this is the heart of freedom of speech and of expression, which apparently is lost on some people. the coward murders of 12 people took place in France this morning because some terrorists decided to impose with violence they twisted values and points of view on others, not because the victims chose to write satirical cartoons and did not respect their murders sensibilities and beliefs. if we all want to live in a better world, we should most of all stop killing people because they say something we don't like.

Again, I did not say they published filth. If you read my following post, I indicated that that was from my friend. I'm responding from my phone and can't always use quotations appropriately but those were my friend'words as indicated in the paragraph. As for me personally, I think some of their cartoons were distasteful and I think they have a right to publish whatever they want , just like you and I do. What I mean by my judgment comment is, we live in a world full of hate already, what does it say about anyone to go to great lengths mocking people's beliefs, especially in the current state of wield affairs? ( not just Islam). Satire can exist without getting to that level. If I were to create a newspaper and call it Retard for the sake of satire and publish pictures of disabled kids, and make fun of their disabilities , what would that make me? Is this really the legacy we want? Now I will repeat it again, that doesn't justify their killings.

I agree with this " Now, I think there's a critical difference between solidarity with the journalists who were attacked, refusing to concede anything to the idea that journalists are somehow 'legitimate targets', and solidarity with what is frankly a racist publication.  I will not waste time arguing over this point here: I simply take it as read that - irrespective of whatever else it does, and whatever valid comment it makes - the way in which that publication represents Islam is racist." Full article here : http://www.leninology.co.uk/2015/01/charlie-hebdo.html?m=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think any level -headed Muslim is rejoicing at what happened today. Murdering someone is always wrong regardless of the motives, so don't distort my words. However, unless we start looking at the root causes, this will never get resolved

I think it's in poor taste after an attack like this to blame the cartoonists/cartoons, if that's what you mean by "root causes." Remember, according to news reports, this magazine was an equal opportunity satirist. The root cause lies with the extremists who think this attack is praiseworthy.

"Root causes" seems to refer to either the cartoons or possibly the existance of Israel on "Muslim land." Beyond those root causes, UBL demanded expulsion of all infidels from Muslim lands in order to protect the caliphate.

You're right. There could be other underlying reasons for the execution in addition to the editorial content. We just have to wait and see what's uncovered if anything else.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
White supremacists have not declared "Jihad" on western civilization and are miniscule in comparison to the size / scope/ organization and mass volume of violence . The radical Muslim threat is so large that millions innocent Muslims could easily be killed in collateral damage if these factions succeed in their goals. You would think self-preservation alone would dictate constant and definantive counter propaganda by the highest Muslim leaders.

According to the US Department of State:

"In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97 percent of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years."

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/195555.htm

But, there really are no such thing as "highest Muslim leaders". This is a point of misunderstanding that constantly frustrates me. Shia Islam is more structured with various leaders, but Shias are a minority. Sunni Islam is sort of like a bunch of Baptists in that practically anyone can can become some kind of leader. Even when there are acknowledged leaders, their authority of those leaders is limited. But, clearly, there are a lot of Muslims leaders whose followers are victimized by terrorism far more than Americans. Those leaders do speak out and always have.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think any level -headed Muslim is rejoicing at what happened today. Murdering someone is always wrong regardless of the motives, so don't distort my words. However, unless we start looking at the root causes, this will never get resolved

I think it's in poor taste after an attack like this to blame the cartoonists/cartoons, if that's what you mean by "root causes." Remember, according to news reports, this magazine was an equal opportunity satirist. The root cause lies with the extremists who think this attack is praiseworthy.

"Root causes" seems to refer to either the cartoons or possibly the existance of Israel on "Muslim land." Beyond those root causes, UBL demanded expulsion of all infidels from Muslim lands in order to protect the caliphate.

You're right. There could be other underlying reasons for the execution in addition to the editorial content. We just have to wait and see what's uncovered if anything else.

I was referring to the root causes of extremism/terrorism, not this particular incident.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.

There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.

However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.

And I agree with you that they shouldn't be killed for it. Btw what I posted was in the words of my friend, not mine. I personally think some of their cartoons were distasteful and many angered lots of folks. Should they be killed for it? Of course not!

While some of the cartoons may be viewed as distasteful, others who didn't view it in that light should be allowed their freedoms of preference. I personally feel strongly about that. Anything else is tantamount to book burning or prevention of anyone to reading a book or any kind.

I agree with you that people have the right to publish whatever they want, say whatever they want, ect but such rights should also come with good judgment. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should, sometimes it just makes you look like an a**. If we want to live in a better world, we all have to make a conscious effort to be aware of each others sensibilities, beliefs, rights, wrongs, ect.

And if we want to live in a better world, we all have to make a conscious effort to call out a wrong when we see it....and call it out loudly and clearly. Regardless of anyone's feelings for Charlie Hebdo and whether they think it is filth or trash, the reason for the destruction of those lives should be condemned in the loudest and clearest voice without exception of whether one thinks it's trash or in bad taste.

Filth should not equal execution and should be condemned as such regardless whether it makes you like an ass or raises an eyebrow to those who disagree.

I don't think any level -headed Muslim is rejoicing at what happened today. Murdering someone is always wrong regardless of the motives, so don't distort my words. However, unless we start looking at the root causes, this will never get resolved

What do you consider the root cause of this incident?

1. The fact that Charlie Hebdo insulted Muhammad, and therefore if they would just stop doing that then incidents like this won't take place; or

2. The fact that many Muslims, taking into account stories from the Hadith where people were killed for insulting Muhammad, with his approval, believe death for blasphemy/insulting the prophet should still be carried out today?

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.

There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.

However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.

This. I'm of Middle Eastern origin and one of my grandmothers was a devout Muslim ( although fortunately the rest of the family freed itself from the yoke of religion altogether). I'm also a dual French-U.S. Citizen and I'm horrified and heartbroken about this massacre.
Charlie Hebdo is a satirical publication and it pokes fun at everyone, no matter how mightly or low, whether from the right or the left, and no matter their religion. It embodies the very principles at the heart of an open and democratic society, and this is nothing more than another attempt to destroy that freedom of speech.
So Muslima, don't come here spouting any of your propaganda about how Islam is a religion of compassion. All religions are selectively compassionate towards some tiny subset of humanity and ruthlessly violent towards the rest, and Islam isn't faring too well right now. Not since the Protestant reformation has a religion killed so many of its own, let alone others, in the name of God.
I was born in the Middle East but France gave me everything that has allowed me to get where I am today: a wonderful, secular, rigorous education (to a female, no less!), welcoming and loving friends without a trace of prejudice in their heart... I could go on but I think I'll start crying.
If you're worried about the Front National, good luck. That was one fine way of ingratiating Muslims to the hearts of the average French citizen.

You have got to be kidding me. Liberte, egalite, fraternite? Well my fellow french woman, France is one of the most intolerant countries in Europe, and you can look no further than the relationship between France and its colonies. Carrying a french passport won't make me say otherwise. Just 2 years ago, repirts still showed this, France is the most racist western European country , 1 in 3 French openly states they are racist. Lepen anyone? I have spent many years in France and half of my family still lives there. There are 3 things you do not want to be in France: Arab, Black or Muslim. Va demander os jeunes des cites relegues ds les HLM ce kils pensent de ton idee d'education a la francaise, la France ouverte qui t'a permi d'evoluer? Non mais tu blagues la ! Give me a break!

Et toi ma cherie, tu es une hypocrite, as is the rest of your family. If France is so bad, why don't you all go home to wherever you came from that was so great and renounce your citizenship? France was wonderful to me, and I suspect our backgrounds aren't so different (although you probably did not put your education to good use because you can't spell). One thing I can't stand is people who move to another country and then spend all their time sh******* on it. Ah yes, their culture is too permissive, their women are sluts, they have the gall of asking me to show my face for a picture ID...
If it's so bad to be Arab in France, why are there such thriving but moderate Arab communities there? Why do Saudi Arabian families own so many of the expensive houses in Paris, where they can come and party far from the stifling restrictions back home?
Hypocrits.

[Anonymous]

I’m really sick of political correctness regarding the radical Islamists who are committing these terror attacks. Call them what they are - Islamic extremists who are terrorists.


Nobody argues with that definition. But, consistency would require identifying other terrorists by their religion as well.


This just seems silly to me. Radical Islam is their cause, so you call them radical Islamic terrorists. If animal rights terrorists attacked a laboratory, we'd call them animal rights terrorists, not Baptist animal rights terrorists or Mormon animal rights terrorists.



It may seem silly, but sadly the reality is that people who murder in the names of other religions are frequently not identified by their religion. For instance, a Christian who as a result of his religious beliefs kills an doctor who performs abortions, would likely be described as an anti-abortion activist rather than a Christian. If he is described as Christian, it would heavily caveated such a "member of the radical Christian fringe group...". But, more often than not, he will not be identified as a member of any group but simply as a lone wolf. I have no problem with these practices of identification, but it should be extended to Muslims.

Right now, unless something has recently changed, we don't know who the religion of the killers, though there is some evidence. That evidence could also be a false trail, though I think that is unlikely. But, even assuming the killers are Muslim, we really need to know more than that for the information to be useful. There are all kinds of Muslims. They aren't all the same. For instance, the killers appear to be men. But, all men are not being asked to denounce the attack and distance themselves. People are not talking about "Male Killers".

You would have a point if people were saying Muslims did this. Saying Islamic terrorists or Islamic extremists is a different thing, because the cause is Islamic extremism.

I don't know what you mean by all Muslims are being asked to denounce the acts. Maybe some commentators are, maybe some reporters are, maybe some bloggers are. There are all kinds of people, and they are not all asking ALL Muslims to denounce the acts. I certainly haven't.
Furthermore, in a 24 hour news cycle with countless commentators and bloggers, people are always looking for an organization or group--of whatever origin--to interview and make a statement. Thus is the reality of media today, but each organization can respond as they see fit.

[Anonymous]

And by the way, Muslima, thanks for finally unveiling your true colors and admitting your level of prejudice towards the French.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think any level -headed Muslim is rejoicing at what happened today. Murdering someone is always wrong regardless of the motives, so don't distort my words. However, unless we start looking at the root causes, this will never get resolved

I think it's in poor taste after an attack like this to blame the cartoonists/cartoons, if that's what you mean by "root causes." Remember, according to news reports, this magazine was an equal opportunity satirist. The root cause lies with the extremists who think this attack is praiseworthy.

"Root causes" seems to refer to either the cartoons or possibly the existance of Israel on "Muslim land." Beyond those root causes, UBL demanded expulsion of all infidels from Muslim lands in order to protect the caliphate.

You're right. There could be other underlying reasons for the execution in addition to the editorial content. We just have to wait and see what's uncovered if anything else.

I was referring to the root causes of extremism/terrorism, not this particular incident.

OK, then. What do you see as the "root causes of extremism/terrorism"?

[jsteele]

Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.

There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.

However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.

And I agree with you that they shouldn't be killed for it. Btw what I posted was in the words of my friend, not mine. I personally think some of their cartoons were distasteful and many angered lots of folks. Should they be killed for it? Of course not!

While some of the cartoons may be viewed as distasteful, others who didn't view it in that light should be allowed their freedoms of preference. I personally feel strongly about that. Anything else is tantamount to book burning or prevention of anyone to reading a book or any kind.

I agree with you that people have the right to publish whatever they want, say whatever they want, ect but such rights should also come with good judgment. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should, sometimes it just makes you look like an a**. If we want to live in a better world, we all have to make a conscious effort to be aware of each others sensibilities, beliefs, rights, wrongs, ect.

Muslima, while I mostly agreed with your posts so far, I strongly desagree with this. you seem to imply that the journalists should have somehow censored themselves, and did something wrong what they published what you defined before as "filth" (I strongly desagree with your judgemnt on CH's work also). but this is the heart of freedom of speech and of expression, which apparently is lost on some people. the coward murders of 12 people took place in France this morning because some terrorists decided to impose with violence they twisted values and points of view on others, not because the victims chose to write satirical cartoons and did not respect their murders sensibilities and beliefs. if we all want to live in a better world, we should most of all stop killing people because they say something we don't like.

Again, I did not say they published filth. If you read my following post, I indicated that that was from my friend. I'm responding from my phone and can't always use quotations appropriately but those were my friend'words as indicated in the paragraph. As for me personally, I think some of their cartoons were distasteful and I think they have a right to publish whatever they want , just like you and I do. What I mean by my judgment comment is, we live in a world full of hate already, what does it say about anyone to go to great lengths mocking people's beliefs, especially in the current state of wield affairs? ( not just Islam). Satire can exist without getting to that level. If I were to create a newspaper and call it Retard for the sake of satire and publish pictures of disabled kids, and make fun of their disabilities , what would that make me? Is this really the legacy we want? Now I will repeat it again, that doesn't justify their killings.

I agree with this " Now, I think there's a critical difference between solidarity with the journalists who were attacked, refusing to concede anything to the idea that journalists are somehow 'legitimate targets', and solidarity with what is frankly a racist publication.  I will not waste time arguing over this point here: I simply take it as read that - irrespective of whatever else it does, and whatever valid comment it makes - the way in which that publication represents Islam is racist." Full article here : http://www.leninology.co.uk/2015/01/charlie-hebdo.html?m=1

Muslima, there is really a fundamental difference between us. I would not only express solidarity to a journalists, but also to a "racist publication" in an event like this. I also find these kinds of distinctions, hours after a massacre with the bodies still there, quite distasteful.

BTW, I strongly desagree that CH is a racist publication and that represent Islam in a racist way. CH is a satirical magazine that pokes fun at everything and everybody, including politicians in France of all types and colors, including religions. more than Islam, the cartoons I saw were poking fun at idiots like the ones who most likely are responsible for the attack, people who use Islam to justify their ideology of violence .

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

I think it depends on how all other groups are depicted. If everyone is in caricature, then who cares? Are the actual people being depicted and caricatured? If so, making a big-eared person have really big ears seems like what cartoonists do, not offensive. Not sure noses should be any different.
However, if all non-Muslims are portrayed with "normal" features and only one/two groups have features emphasized, that's more troubling.
But, again, I think we risk conflating two questions: 1) Should the free speech rights of these artists be defended and the killings unequivocally defended? (Right answer: yes.); 2) Is this art offensive? (I don't know the right answer to that one.)
I think that we shouldn't even be discussing Question 2 at this point. It's irrelevant. It's a question for another day, because it doesn't impact the answer to Question 1, which is what's at issue today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

I think it depends on how all other groups are depicted. If everyone is in caricature, then who cares? Are the actual people being depicted and caricatured? If so, making a big-eared person have really big ears seems like what cartoonists do, not offensive. Not sure noses should be any different.
However, if all non-Muslims are portrayed with "normal" features and only one/two groups have features emphasized, that's more troubling.
But, again, I think we risk conflating two questions: 1) Should the free speech rights of these artists be defended and the killings unequivocally defended? (Right answer: yes.); 2) Is this art offensive? (I don't know the right answer to that one.)
I think that we shouldn't even be discussing Question 2 at this point. It's irrelevant. It's a question for another day, because it doesn't impact the answer to Question 1, which is what's at issue today.

SORRY. I meant "killings unequivocally condemned" obviously. BAD typo.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:In the words of my friend, nothing can justify the disgraceful attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Murder is murder. It is not the Prophet (saw) who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed and tainted . The kind of things ?CharlieHebdo? published were not decent. But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
Now even if the perpetrators of the attack claimed to be Muslim and supposedly shouted that they "avenged the Prophet", Muslims, either individually or collectively, are not responsible for what happened and should not have to apologize for being Muslim nor should they be or feel forced to distance themselves from the attacks. This is not some kind of declaration of war on Western civilization. Both the universal freedom of speech as well as Islam as a religion of compassion are under attack here. With the neo-fascist Front National growing in France, the Islamophobic Pegida next door, the far-right growing everywhere and a security state across the West waiting for any excuse to seize more civil liberties, nobody wins here by giving in to this rhetoric but those who want to sow hate on all sides.
Yes, we should be angry and sad about what happened, but we should not accept the invitation of the perpetrators of the attack to join them in their hatefulness. My deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims.

There are many who would say Charlie Hebdo was not filth but satire. Just as many would say the Onion, which I enjoy, is satire.

However, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion of what they view as filth. That's my and your right. How sad that someones definition of 'filth' took away the lives of husbands, wives, parents, sisters, brothers, and the right of free speech.

This. I'm of Middle Eastern origin and one of my grandmothers was a devout Muslim ( although fortunately the rest of the family freed itself from the yoke of religion altogether). I'm also a dual French-U.S. Citizen and I'm horrified and heartbroken about this massacre.
Charlie Hebdo is a satirical publication and it pokes fun at everyone, no matter how mightly or low, whether from the right or the left, and no matter their religion. It embodies the very principles at the heart of an open and democratic society, and this is nothing more than another attempt to destroy that freedom of speech.
So Muslima, don't come here spouting any of your propaganda about how Islam is a religion of compassion. All religions are selectively compassionate towards some tiny subset of humanity and ruthlessly violent towards the rest, and Islam isn't faring too well right now. Not since the Protestant reformation has a religion killed so many of its own, let alone others, in the name of God.
I was born in the Middle East but France gave me everything that has allowed me to get where I am today: a wonderful, secular, rigorous education (to a female, no less!), welcoming and loving friends without a trace of prejudice in their heart... I could go on but I think I'll start crying.
If you're worried about the Front National, good luck. That was one fine way of ingratiating Muslims to the hearts of the average French citizen.

You have got to be kidding me. Liberte, egalite, fraternite? Well my fellow french woman, France is one of the most intolerant countries in Europe, and you can look no further than the relationship between France and its colonies. Carrying a french passport won't make me say otherwise. Just 2 years ago, repirts still showed this, France is the most racist western European country , 1 in 3 French openly states they are racist. Lepen anyone? I have spent many years in France and half of my family still lives there. There are 3 things you do not want to be in France: Arab, Black or Muslim. Va demander os jeunes des cites relegues ds les HLM ce kils pensent de ton idee d'education a la francaise, la France ouverte qui t'a permi d'evoluer? Non mais tu blagues la ! Give me a break!

Et toi ma cherie, tu es une hypocrite, as is the rest of your family. If France is so bad, why don't you all go home to wherever you came from that was so great and renounce your citizenship? France was wonderful to me, and I suspect our backgrounds aren't so different (although you probably did not put your education to good use because you can't spell). One thing I can't stand is people who move to another country and then spend all their time sh******* on it. Ah yes, their culture is too permissive, their women are sluts, they have the gall of asking me to show my face for a picture ID...
If it's so bad to be Arab in France, why are there such thriving but moderate Arab communities there? Why do Saudi Arabian families own so many of the expensive houses in Paris, where they can come and party far from the stifling restrictions back home?
Hypocrits.

My dear, go and learn the definition of "hypocrite". First, I do not carry a French passport (by choice) though I can legally get one and I do not reside in France. My grandmother descends from a long line of French women, and my grandparents fought the war alongside their French brothers/sisters, so yeah liberte, egalite, fraternite? We fought for that. I do not identify as French though it's part of my heritage. Part of my family that lives there are French, not immigrants, so yeah, your comment about "go back where you're from" is laughable coming from a middle eastern man who immigrated to France as you described yourself. And , no I am sure that you and are not of the same background, nor of a close background. Now if your idea of French immigrants thriving is that Saudi immigrants own expensive houses in Paris, lol then this discussion is moot. You obviously don't understand the disparity, discrimination, racism that is blatant in France, so much so that there are many articles on the topic, google it. Self-imposed ignorance is not cute. Now as far as my spelling , you will have to bear with me, since I'm typing from my phone, and I don't think any of my forum comments would ever make it to a Law review paper, really, it is not that serious!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Separate from the discussion of the killing in Paris -- and maybe this needs its own thread -- but is anyone bothered by how Muslims are portrayed in the cartoons? I emphasize that no matter how distasteful I might find the drawings, the magazine still has the right to publish them and there is absolutely no justification for the killings. But, that said, the drawings I've seen emphasize Semitic features such as long noses, etc. If these drawing were depicting Jews, I am fairly certain they would be criticized as anti-Semitic. In that case, I don't think we would be seeing such strong defenses of freedom of expression as we are now seeing. I suggest that we might want to distinguish between the artists -- whose rights we support -- and the art -- which I personally am not sure I want to defend.

Jeff, you don't know much about CH. they did plenty of cartoons on Jews, as well as on catholic priests, the pope and so on. I am too dumb to be able to post images, otherwise I will post a few samples, but you can find them by yourself. maybe because I am from Europe I have a different sensiblity on satirical cartoons, but I certainly don'd find CH racist.