Frank's main squeeze, the Big-Titted one: Charlie Hebdo, you are full of shit.

[dutch508]

BainsBane (29,316 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026085399

Charlie Hebdo, Don't pretend your new issue does not disrespect Islam
Charlie Hebdo has the right to publish what it likes within the confines of French law. I don't dispute their right to free speech, and under no circumstances do I condone or excuse the murders. Pretending, however, that there is something respectful or conciliatory about this second edition is farcical.

"We didn't know how we were going to start," he said. "I didn't know if it was going to be possible for me to draw, quite honestly."

But he did. First a cartoon that served as "catharsis," and then, after many iterations, he drew a cartoon of Islam's Prophet Muhammad shedding a tear and holding a sign with what's become the slogan of this tragedy: "Je Suis Charlie," or "I am Charlie." Above it all, there's a headline that reads, "All Is Forgiven."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/13/376947103/charlie-hebdos-editor-on-new-issue-were-happy-to-have-done-it



Charlie Hebdo chose to be defiant. They also chose to disrespect Islam and French Muslims. Any depiction of the Prophet Mohammad is seen as blasphemous under Islam. Edit: It turns out I'm wrong about this. See discussions below.


Aniconism in Islam not only deals with the material image, but touches upon mental representations as well. It is a thorny question, discussed by early theologians, as to how to describe God, Muhammad and other prophets, and, indeed, if it is permissible at all to do so. God is usually represented by immaterial attributes, such as "holy" or "merciful", commonly known from His "Ninety-nine beautiful names". Muhammad's physical appearance, however, is amply described, particularly in the traditions on his life and deeds recorded in the biographies known as Sirah Rasul Allah. Of no less interest is the validity of sightings of holy personages made during dreams.

Titus Burckhardt sums up the role of aniconism in sacred Islamic art as follows:

"The absence of icons in Islam has not merely a negative but a positive role. By excluding all anthropomorphic images, at least within the religious realm, Islamic art aids man to be entirely himself. Instead of projecting his soul outside himself, he can remain in his ontological centre where he is both the viceregent (khalîfa) and slave ('abd) of God. Islamic art as a whole aims at creating an ambience which helps man to realize his primordial dignity; it therefore avoids everything that could be an 'idol', even in a relative and provisional manner. Nothing must stand between man and the invisible presence of God. Thus Islamic art creates a void; it eliminates in fact all the turmoil and passionate suggestions of the world, and in their stead creates an order that expresses equilibrium, serenity and peace."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam

In the great traditions of Islamic art and architecture, the human figure is rarely depicted, while Allah and Mohammad never appear. Note, for example, the Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque in Isfahan, Iran in comparison to the Sistine Chapel.

It does not matter if the Prophet is crying or holding a machine gun. All images are seen as blasphemous. Certainly journalists operating in a country with a significant Muslim population know something so basic. In exercising their rights to free speech, Charlie Hebdo chose to disrespect Islam and French citizens of the Muslim faith. Their legal right to free speech even allows them to cloak that disrespect in the language of forgiveness, while my rights to free speech enable me to say I find their explanation disingenuous and willfully ethnocentric.  Charlie Hebdo, you are full of shit.

 

Bainesbane justifies the murder of innocent civilians.

BainsBane (29,316 posts)
2. I don't think they should be apologetic at all They chose the caption "all is forgiven." What I'm saying is that it is disingenuous to pretend there is something conciliatory about that issue, when clearly it is deliberately offensive. They are saying **** you to Muslims. They should at least be honest about it.

Dorian Gray (8,509 posts)
16. And those who didn't attack them who may be offended will feel a moment of offense and then go on and live their lives. It sucks, but there are religious depictions in society that offend all the time.  It's rude, sure, but it's also free speech.

BainsBane (29,316 posts)
19. Did I suggest otherwise? I was quite clear to say I support their right to free speech, as I choose to exercise my own. 

Yeah... you kind of did.

cali (97,358 posts)
24. lol. no you aren't clear. you contradict yourself.

No shit.

BainsBane (29,316 posts)
29. It really isn't a very difficult concept The right to free speech doesn't mean one is immune from criticism. I am criticizing their speech, while acknowledging their right to engage in it.

It does not matter if the Prophet is crying or holding a machine gun. All images are seen as blasphemous. Certainly journalists operating in a country with a significant Muslim population know something so basic. In exercising their rights to free speech, Charlie Hebdo chose to disrespect Islam and French citizens of the Muslim faith.

 

You just justified the killing of anyone who is critical of islam.

aikoaiko (20,260 posts)
3. Are they pretending to not disrespect Islam?

BainsBane (29,316 posts)
7. Yes, I think they are. Based on the interview with the editor on NPR. Also having Mohammad saying "Je suis Charlie" suggests as much. They present the new cover as a statement against radical terrorrists, but the depiction of the Prophet disrespects Islam and Muslims more generally. 

So what?

BainsBane (29,316 posts)
63. The point of speech is to communicate it is all about reception. If it is simply about the speaker, there is no reason to publish it or even say it to another person.

SidDithers (34,871 posts)
10. Why should any non-Muslim choose to adhere to the restrictions of the Muslim faith?...

If Muslims choose to not depict their prophet in image form, that's their choice.

They're welcome to be offended by the actions of non-Muslims, if they so choose.

Too ****ing bad.

Sid

BainsBane (29,316 posts)
17. I conssider it a failure of imagination not to be able to depict the message without a drawing of Mohammad. Centuries of Muslim artists have managed, but somehow they can't. Thanks for the spelling correction.

 

The point is they artists are not muslims! They shouldn't be forced to follow islam's laws at all.

BainsBane (29,316 posts)
23. So you endorse the view that real France isn't Muslim and Muslim France is somehow separate and not part of the call for unity expressed under "Je suis Charlie"?  The statement is a call to national unity.

It's a statement for the call of all rational people to stand against extremism.

BainsBane (29,316 posts)
51. Ah yes, the oldest trick in the book you claim to speak for all French Muslism. You claim to speakf or everyone therefore your speech is invalid. Weak, that is as weak as an argument gets. You emphatically insisted that Charlie Hebdo is not Muslim. What are they? Are they also not French? How can one have a call to national unity and exclude part of the nation?

You are a ****ing idiot.
Let me post this comment one line at a  time...

BainsBane (29,316 posts)
80. I'm not suggesting anyone abide by tenents of a religion

I am saying that the magazine cover is disrespectful rather than unifying.

I don't disput their right to disrespect.

I am saying I don't agree with it because I believe all human beings are worthy of respect, regardless of religion, ethnicity, race, or gender.

Now you are telling me that if I don't actively treat people with disrespect based on religion and ethnicity and support a dominant culture's rights to disrespect a subaltern group, that makes me like the Tea Party.

Since when has the Tea Party opposed bigotry?

You and I clearly don't share the same version of progressivism.

I do not believe that progressivism is about promoting the dominant culture over the subaltern.

I call that support for power.

Can you follow that twisted maze of logic?

Bluenorthwest (33,792 posts)
160. Except that the point they are making is not similar to Repubicans who say 'Welfare Queens' the point they are making is the opposite of that, it is an attack on right wingers in France who are similar to Republicans who say 'Welfare Queens'. That is the simple fact.
I've had a few of these pro religion straight folks show me cartoons that are pro gay and tell me they are homophobic. They are incorrect and working an agenda. They come to try to tell me that strong advocates for my rights are actually bigots. I know better.

BainsBane (29,316 posts)
104. The fact is religion, ethnicity and class are intertwined particularly in France where most Mulsims are from former French colonies. I get a lot of people here hate religion. That's your issue. However, if you pretend you can separate religion from it's ethnic and socio-economic context, you're not being honest. When you disrespect Islam, you disrespect Muslims. Your hatred of religion may mean it's worth it to you. I myself don't care about religion. I care about human beings, particularly the dispossesed. Many of the poorest French citizens are Muslim. So yeah, it's easy to disrespect the poor and defiled. That's why people do it. It's the performance of power. 

Uh... Muslims are followers of Islam. It's not like they are a seperate race or nationality, BB.

BlueStater (3,307 posts)
159. After eight of their friends and colleagues were ****ing MURDERED last week by assholes upset over cartoons, I really don't think they give a damn about the delicate sensibilities of certain Muslims.

^ this.

[thundley4]

I've read a lot of threads on DU about this crap. They all seem to have one thing in common. DUesr support free speech as long as it only offends white Christian males. All other times care must be taken to understand the sensitivities of everyone else.

[Ptarmigan]

 

[DumbAss Tanker]

BainsBane (29,316 posts)
51. Ah yes, the oldest trick in the book you claim to speak for all French Muslism[sic].

Who smelt it, dealt it.

[Skul]

Good grief. Another gNads, except this scrunt can spell. 

[Skul]

Good grief. Another gNads, except this scrunt can spell. 

[Carl]

Jugs proves once more to be the poster child for the term "educated ****ing idiot".

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 05:09 PM

Prism (3,771 posts)
86. Liberal independent women offend conservative Islam

When are we going to get stirring defenses of that belief here on DU?

Might as well go whole hog on surrendering liberal values if we're so damn determined to go down this road.

Response to Prism (Reply #86)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 10:18 AM

Star Member BainsBane (29,317 posts)
197. I know several liberal independent Muslim women

Go figure. I do not consider liberal values to be dumping all over despised minorities, though clearly many do.

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 08:30 PM

Bluenorthwest (33,797 posts)
149. I was going to comment earlier but I had to check to see if it is respectful to Islam for me, a man

to accept lecturing discourse from you, a woman, in a public place. So to show my respect for Islam, I must not discuss religious matters with you in public. So I will merely say that you make hypocrisy seem easy.

[Carl]

Response to Xithras (Reply #128)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 10:49 AM

Star Member BainsBane (29,323 posts)
206. Charlie Hebdo is indeed a product of Western culture

a culture that colonized North Africa, oppressed Muslims there, and allowed some in its national boundaries to be treated as second-class citizens. Your post demonstrates that you see those whose ethnic origins are not from Western Europe as outside the cultural fabric. There is nothing disrespectful in that magazine to you because it isn't about you. I wonder if your reaction might be different if it had skewered atheists?

On this site we hear endlessly about how using the term white privilege is offensive to white people. We are forbidden to call MRA arguments out for what they are, in both cases because they addresses the privileged. Charlie Hebdo skewers the disenfranchised, an immigrant, colonized minority within France. It's always easy to pick on the weak, and as these responses show, people will line up to support it. (Note, I am not talking about the terrorists and murderers but ordinary, peaceful Muslims). As Bravenak points out below, why not punch up rather than down? There is no challenge to power in skewering Islam. It is an affirmation of Western power over ethnic minorities and the Muslim world.

Eat shit and die stupid bitch.

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 06:41 AM

Star Member get the red out (9,346 posts)
186. Sickening

The difference between the ****ing respect given to this religion and all others is one of the left's biggest hypocracies. How about the treatment of gay people and women? I know someone will claim culture not religion, but claim the opposite regarding Christianity's wrongs. We dismiss human rights as nothing in the face of this, most beloved religion. If Republicans don't like a group they can do no God-damned, ****ing wrong in the eyes of way too many myopic, whining, snot-slinging one-trick far, far left ponies who obviously don't give the first shit about women and gays, except where other religions are concerned; then are all over human rights.

Because we know when Christianity is made fun of there are mobs in the streets of many countries and people in the media get shot full of bullets in groups, right?????

Response to get the red out (Reply #186)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 10:25 AM

Star Member BainsBane (29,323 posts)
199. I happen to know a gay Muslim and women Muslims

Should I dump all over them to make you happy? They don't see it that way. They see the Western liberal contempt for Islam as imperialistic, which is precisely what it is.
In the case of France, Muslims are immigrants from former French colonies. They are the poorest and most disenfranchised French citizens, which makes them an easy target,. My definition of sickening doesn't included contempt for human beings based on religion and ethnicity.

Give it up,you are one of the biggest idiots there is.

[DumbAss Tanker]

As usual, when confronted with her own contradictions, she deflects with a long-winded pseudo-academic nonanswer.  And as far as her 'Male privilege' BS goes, she is totally blind to the existence of different but countervailing female privileges in industrial-era Western society, unlike the vast majority of the Islamic world of today in which women stand on a roughly-equal footing with livestock (I would not say 'Little better than livestock' because whatever technical distinctions might exist in theory, they don't matter in practice). 

[DUKOTA]

And in the meantime, she and every other fricken liberal will trash Christianity every chance they get.

[wasp69]

Response to Xithras (Reply #128)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 10:49 AM

Star Member BainsBane (29,323 posts)
206. Charlie Hebdo is indeed a product of Western culture

a culture that colonized North Africa, oppressed Muslims there, and allowed some in its national boundaries to be treated as second-class citizens. Your post demonstrates that you see those whose ethnic origins are not from Western Europe as outside the cultural fabric. There is nothing disrespectful in that magazine to you because it isn't about you. I wonder if your reaction might be different if it had skewered atheists?

On this site we hear endlessly about how using the term white privilege is offensive to white people. We are forbidden to call MRA arguments out for what they are, in both cases because they addresses the privileged. Charlie Hebdo skewers the disenfranchised, an immigrant, colonized minority within France. It's always easy to pick on the weak, and as these responses show, people will line up to support it. (Note, I am not talking about the terrorists and murderers but ordinary, peaceful Muslims). As Bravenak points out below, why not punch up rather than down? There is no challenge to power in skewering Islam. It is an affirmation of Western power over ethnic minorities and the Muslim world.

I wonder if this walking dildo holster is aware of the fact that Algeria has been independent since 1962, and the oppressed muslims can pretty much go back to the motherland at any time?

[wasp69]

As usual, when confronted with her own contradictions, she deflects with a long-winded pseudo-academic nonanswer.  And as far as her 'Male privilege' BS goes, she is totally blind to the existence of different but countervailing female privileges in industrial-era Western society, unlike the vast majority of the Islamic world of today in which women stand on a roughly-equal footing with livestock (I would not say 'Little better than livestock' because whatever technical distinctions might exist in theory, they don't matter in practice).

What I find truly breathtaking is watching her run on forever about "feminism" and "male privilege" while at the same time defend the hijab amongst her pet Somali islamotwits.  The cognitive dissonance must make her head ring like the bells of St Micheal's.

[JohnnyReb]

What I find truly breathtaking is watching her run on forever about "feminism" and "male privilege" while at the same time defend the hijab amongst her pet Somali islamotwits.  The cognitive dissonance must make her head ring like the bells of St Micheal's.

Wouldn't you just love to put a metal ball in her head and give it a good shake just to see what kind of ring tone it would make?