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

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Not sure why "Jews" had to brought up at all.

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. [b]But whatever filth they published, they did NOT deserve to be killed for it.
[/b]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!

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.

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.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth are news organizations covering this story refusing the show images of any CH cartoons that may be offensive to Muslims? It's a central part of the story. Seriously? We're going to pixelate the images and only describe them in our stories?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/news-orgs-censor-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-after-attack-200709.html#disqus_thread

Based on what I've seen today, there are cartoons that would offend just about everyone. Unless news organizations were very selective (for instance, only being willing to offend Muslims), they would get a lot of unwanted pushback.

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth are news organizations covering this story refusing the show images of any CH cartoons that may be offensive to Muslims? It's a central part of the story. Seriously? We're going to pixelate the images and only describe them in our stories?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/news-orgs-censor-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-after-attack-200709.html#disqus_thread

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I just saw on Twitter that one of the policemen killed in Paris was a Muslim.

His name was Ahmed. He is the officer seen in the graphic video. He was 42 and had a one-year old girl.

jsteele wrote:I just saw on Twitter that one of the policemen killed in Paris was a Muslim.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I just saw on Twitter that one of the policemen killed in Paris was a Muslim.

His name was Ahmed. He is the officer seen in the graphic video. He was 42 and had a one-year old girl.