'Islam no longer religion of peace' Muslim Charlie Hebdo journalist hits out at extremists

[trotsky]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/726912/Muslim-Charlie-Hebdo-journalist-Zineb-El-Rhazoui-Islam-no-religion-peace

Zineb El Rhazoui, who was luckily in Casablanca the day Islamic State jihadis massacred nine of her magazine colleagues in Paris, said the Islamism of today is “applied Islam” which gives way to terrorism.

The outspoken Moroccan/French journalist is carrying on the work of her beloved friends by speaking out against extremism despite being France’s most protected woman, with state-provided armed guards protecting her 24 hours a day.

Writing in her controversial new book, Detruire Le Fascisme Islamique (Destroy Islamic Fascism), released in France this week, she said: “When we apply Islam to the letter it gives Islamism, and when we apply Islamism to the letter it gives terrorism.

“So we need to stop saying Islam is a religion of peace and love. What is a moderate Islamist? An Islamist who doesn’t kill?”

[patsimp]

1. Very brave lady.

[guillaumeb]

2. The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo practiced their own brand of racism and hate.

Their so-called weekly does of satire was thinly veiled racism directed at the powerless, not satire directed at the powerful.

And Zineb El Rhazoui engages in typical anti-theist broad brushing herself with her attempt at framing.

In the same mode as her "applied Islam" nonsense, would I be justified in calling Stalinist Russia an example of "applied atheism" because Stalin was an atheist?

[trotsky]

3. Did anyone deserve to be killed for those cartoons? n/t

[rug]

5. Did anyone suggest that, besides you?

[guillaumeb]

7. Of course not.

But one person's interpretation of Islam proves nothing about the religion and a lot about the person making the accusations.

[trotsky]

9. What does it prove about violent Islamists?

Do you acknowledge they exist?

Let me know if you decide you want to discuss what was actually said, and not the ridiculous straw man you love to attack.

[guillaumeb]

10. What was said?

Writing in her controversial new book, Detruire Le Fascisme Islamique (Destroy Islamic Fascism), released in France this week, she said: “When we apply Islam to the letter it gives Islamism, and when we apply Islamism to the letter it gives terrorism.

“So we need to stop saying Islam is a religion of peace and love. What is a moderate Islamist? An Islamist who doesn’t kill?”

This is what appeared in the article. This is what you decided to post.

So one person has declared that Islam is not a religion of peace and love. And one person has decided that Islam leads to terrorism.

Classic broad brushing and classic straw man argumentation.

The only ridiculous thing here is her attempt at logic.

[trotsky]

13. You do realize it's not just one person, right?

Non-Muslims, Ex-Muslims, current Muslims. It is widely disputed by countless people that Islam is a "religion of peace." In fact, given the history of every religion we know, I don't think any of them can claim that title. It's ridiculous to view religion as 100% pure and noble, as you do.

We can go over every violent verse in the Koran if you'd like (and I don't even have to fabricate them, like you did to create a 'quote' to support your position). Why on earth would a "religion of peace" ever contain instructions for killing someone, at any time?

And once again - you're the one employing the straw man. NO ONE is saying that all Muslims are violent. NO ONE is saying that Islam automatically leads to terrorism. So stop attacking that position - you just look foolish doing so.

[guillaumeb]

15. Your agenda is again showing.

Out of approximately 1.6 billion Muslims, what percentage are violent?

What is your source for this:

It is widely disputed by countless people that Islam is a "religion of peace

Other than your personal opinion based on your agenda?

One cartoonist made a silly statement. A broad brush accusation based on her own opinion. What made you decide that this particular article deserved a mention here?

[rug]

16. I hope he posts a quote without the author.

I like to guess whether the quote's from Pam Geller or Sam Harris.

[guillaumeb]

18. My bet is Sam Harris. The tone is too moderate for Geller's type of hate. eom

[Albertoo]

21. Again? Half the world's Muslims support death sentences for imaginary crimes

imaginary crimes = adultery, homosexuality, apostasy,... Source = Pew Research (reminder)

If you noted that fact, it would preventively answer your questions such as: "Out of approximately 1.6 billion Muslims, what percentage are violent?"

[guillaumeb]

36. If the mere existence of the death penalty proves a predisposition for violence,

does that mean that the existence of atheistic countries such as Russia and China, both of which execute people, proves that atheists also have a predisposition for violence?

[Albertoo]

46. Again, that same old confusion? A poor diversion from the quantification of Islam's violence

Atheism does NOT mandate ANY course of action.

People in China, Russia or Beluchistan might do this or that, it won't be because of atheism.

Atheism is just the fact of not having enough evidence to believe in a god concept
(concept which is very poorly defined, but that's not the point here)

[Lordquinton]

90. Atheistic countries... Russia...

[Albertoo]

96. Yes, I had noted that

But what I find the most amusing is the western Christians who marvel at the resurgence of 'faith' in Orthodox Russia, completely blind to the fact this revival is carefully orchestrated and manipulated by a guy who had grown through the ranks up to Lieutenant Colonel of an organization one objective of which had been to stamp out religion.

Said Lieutenant Colonel was clever enough to remember that the Tzar was god's representative on earth, and that reviving the Orthodox superstition would allow him to be 'reelected' for as long as he wished (using his sidekick sock puppet when needed)

[trotsky]

23. My evidence is the large number of people - Muslims, ex-Muslims, non-Muslims who report so.

As I noted, I don't think *any* religion can properly call itself a "religion of peace." So you can take your tiresome personal attacks elsewhere. Argue the facts. This might be a challenge for you, since you have a documented history of fabricating quotes from the Koran in order to make an argument.

[guillaumeb]

37. More innuendo?

The fact here is that a cartoonist for a racist, sexist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic magazine with a long history of attacking the powerless has pronounced her personal opinion and you have seized on this opinion as the subject of a post attacking religion. Again, perfectly within your rights, but comments noting your tactics and rather transparent agenda are also within our rights.

[trotsky]

40. Would you care to actually discuss the issue...

or are you just going to use your trademark inflammatory language and personal attacks?

If you'd like to shut me up with actual facts instead of trying desperately via silly attacks, you can discuss this question with me: Are there ANY verses (real ones, not ones you made up!) in the Koran that someone might reasonably interpret to condone or perhaps even command violence in certain situations?

[guillaumeb]

41. Your invitation to ride the endless carousel of accusation and selective verse mining

in support of your agenda is declined. My view is that your goal is to focus exclusively on attacking religion and believers. And reading the comments here shows that my view is not mine alone.

[trotsky]

49. "Selective verse mining" is what all believers - including yourself - do.

You cherry-pick the stuff you like. Thankfully most believers pick overall decent things. But there are "bad" cherries too - something which you are here admitting, thank you - and sometimes people like cherries that you consider bad.

Yep, I have an agenda. It's to discuss the role of religion in world events in the *gasp* Religion group. You're on to me.

It seems you have conceded this point, though. Thanks for playing.

[Dorian Gray]

22. Absolutely never not ever

Does that mean that the cartoons or the satire (and the intent of the satire) can't be criticized?

Or that this woman's words can't be debated?

Do I agree with her? I don't know. Maybe. Though I think she may be taking a short sighted view of Islam based on what happened to her co-workers and her experience in France. Which is understandable. A lot of NYers had similar views after 9-11. My instincts weren't so kind as I stood on the top of my building and watched the second tower fall.

But she is Muslim, and change and challenge coming from Muslims to the extremists is necessary. Differing viewpoints... .challenging viewpoints... it's all necessary and fundamental for change.

[trotsky]

24. What I object to is the immediate response whenever the Charlie Hebdo murders are mentioned...

of how offended someone was by some cartoons they published.

Murder is NEVER an acceptable response to being offended. NEVER.

[guillaumeb]

42. And who said this, that you might object to it?

Please point out the post, or posts, that defend the murders as a legitimate and appropriate response.

More straw-filled constructions?

[trotsky]

50. You did, in your very first post on this thread.

Now before your get all righteously indignant, let's take a close look at what both of us said.

My statement in post #24 was this:

What I object to is the immediate response whenever the Charlie Hebdo murders are mentioned...
of how offended someone was by some cartoons they published.

Your first statement (i.e., your immediate response) in post #2 was this:

The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo practiced their own brand of racism and hate.
Their so-called weekly does of satire was thinly veiled racism directed at the powerless, not satire directed at the powerful.

You are the proof of my statement. Now I know what you're thinking - you believe that I claimed you said the murders were justified. But read my post carefully - I never claimed that. I simply said "Murder is NEVER an acceptable response to being offended. NEVER."

[guillaumeb]

67. What you said in post 24:

What I object to is the immediate response whenever the Charlie Hebdo murders are mentioned...
 
of how offended someone was by some cartoons they published.

Murder is NEVER an acceptable response to being offended. NEVER.

I then asked who made such a statement.
You responded in your #50 that
"You did, in your very first post on this thread."

Your closing statement was not made in response to someone here stating or implying that murder IS an acceptable response. You simply referenced murder so you could argue against a response that no one had made.

So in light of the fact that no one suggested that murder WAS an acceptable response, why bring it up at all?

And your title, suggests that I DID make the contention that murder is an acceptable response. More building with straw.

[Goblinmonger]

68. Why did you immediately bring up that people were offended by the cartoons?

What is the point of that argument in the context of the OP, then?

[guillaumeb]

70. Refer back to # 50, read the entire thread,

and ask yourself why Trotsky would make the response that he did.

Nowhere is murder posited as an acceptable response. Trotsky brought it up so he could argue that it is/was not an acceptable response. So you will have to pose this question to Trotsky.

[Goblinmonger]

71. I fully understand what trotsky was saying before he spelled it out to you step by step

Why don't you answer my question. What did your response mean, then, (the #2 response on this thread) in relation to the OP?

[guillaumeb]

72. My response was:

The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo practiced their own brand of racism and hate.
 Their so-called weekly does of satire was thinly veiled racism directed at the powerless, not satire directed at the powerful.
And Zineb El Rhazoui engages in typical anti-theist broad brushing herself with her attempt at framing.
In the same mode as her "applied Islam" nonsense, would I be justified in calling Stalinist Russia an example of "applied atheism" because Stalin was an atheist?

We have one person claiming to define Islam. So my comment about her can be understood in the context of her claims.

My comment about CH is my personal opinion about CH and what I feel are the motivations behind some of their cartoons.

I hope this step by step "spelling it out for you" helps you.

And to further help, Trotsky has the right to post whatever he wishes, just as I, or any here, have the right to question motivation.

Agreed?

[trotsky]

69. But I didn't say that it was your position.

In fact, I will even clarify right here that I don't think you believe the Charlie Hebdo murders were justified. Happy now?

But I never actually claimed that.

Now address my point. Why is the first response - yours - always to point at how offensive some material is? What is the point in doing that?

[Dorian Gray]

45. You're absolutely right....

and I think that France and the world was shocked by that horrific attack.

[Albertoo]

20. It is obvious you do not know Charlie Hebdo

Charlie Hebdo was created by members of the Flower Power generation: anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-racism, etc. And politically to the left of Sanders: Charlie Hebdo has always had a far left anti-capitalist stance.

So to say Charlie Hebdo was "not satire directed at the powerful" is a complete mistake.

Charlie Hebdo regularly spoke up against police racial profiling and steadfastly advocated for complete amnesty of all undocumented migrants in France.

So to call Charlie Hebdo racist is another complete mistake.

Now, as part of the French Left cultural heritage, Charlie Hebdo has always been anticlerical, building on the long tradition of blaspheming against the Roman Catholic Church. When Islam became visible and militant around the 90's, Charlie Hebdo extended its anticlericalism to Islam.

Anticlericalism is not racism, and Islam is not a race, it's a superstition like other religions.

[guillaumeb]

38. I have read Charlie Hebdo many times. Not in translation.

And the weekly dose of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, and sexism is not to my liking. And I admit as much.


There is a cartoon from CH, with a number of pregnant, veiled, black (presumably Arab) women in it. Also included is the caption "touchez pas a nos allocs". IF you are not familiar with it, look it up.

To help out, the phrase translates as "do not touch our welfare". So let us deconstruct this cutting edge satire a bit.

1) Pregnant black women wearing veils. We can excuse that alone because it says nothing much. But when we include the admonition to
"touchez pas a nos allocs", or "do not touch our welfare", to the image of the black, pregnant, veiled (presumably Arab) women we add the meme of the welfare queen so beloved of Ronald Reagan and racists everywhere.

I await your explanation of how attacking ordinary Jews and Arabs translates somehow into classic Rabelaisian or Swiftian satire directed against the powerful.

[Albertoo]

47. The fact you do not understand gallows humor does not prove anything about Charlie Hebdo

• First, you just practiced here a very neat bit of bait and switch. You made an initial claim (that Charlie Hebdo did not go after the powerful which was a complete misunderstanding of its very raison d'être). When I confronted you with evidence of that very fact, you switch to one cartoon about people which are not powerful. One sparrow does not a spring make.

• Second, for your broad brush, totally unsubstantiated claims that Charlie Hebdo would display antisemitism and racism, it's so far off the mark I won't bother. Ask a few Frenchmen if they feel these epithets apply to Charlie Hebdo, and they'll probably laugh it off.

• Third, one special note about sexism. You probably did not bother to really read my previous post: Charlie Hebdo was created by far Left Flower Power people. These 'Mai 68' people liked to model themselves after the California communes with a strict and militant gender equality. To call these guys sexist is hilarious. Besides, you also miss the point that gallows humor has deep roots in Gallic history. One may like it or not (not particularly my cup of tea), but to read it through your northern-Americas campus-PC lenses is just off the mark. In short, you totally misinterpret Charlie Hebdo's brand of humor. Which leads me to:

• Four and last, the "allocs" drawing. While it is in-your-face, you again completely misread the gallows humor involved, diverting a protest slogan (child benefits demands) to a dramatic situation of mass abduction and rape. I'm not asking you to like mediterranean gallows humor (which, in this case, is too coarse to my taste), but do try not to misinterpret it through your cultural imperialism.

[guillaumeb]

66. A "cultural imperialist" and a "north American campus PC lens" person?

"Je suis malade". (Gallic cultural reference)

And you are of course correct, that a French speaking Quebecker would have absolutely no conception of Gallic humor. What could I have been thinking to judge these brave satirists from my culturally imperialistic, N. American campus PC lens?

As far as your "one cartoon" explanation, if it were on cartoon that might be a point. But it is not. It is a series of cartoons mocking religion to prove the point that being intolerant of religion proves that one is tolerant. And Charlie Hebdo cannot be decontextualized from the attempts to prohibit veils on the beach, the stories about prohibiting the wearing of certain religious symbols at school, at work, in the office. In this sense, CH is merely one piece of this mosaic.

[Albertoo]

92. your answer #66 is a strange salad

"Je suis malade" doesn't refer to anything in our discussion.

Québec's culture is to French culture what US culture is to the British culture. Different.

And you amalgamating the 'allocs' cartoon to veil-banning is a nice forced grouped sale: even if the 'allocs' drawing is coarse, full-veil banning is perfectly legitimate as the full face veil is the militant female uniform of a totalitarian ideology, political Islam. Chopped hands for the thieves and lapidation for adulterers? No, thank you. Not progressive. At all.

[guillaumeb]

101. "Je suis malade" is a well known song.

In addition to being well-informed about the nuance of Gallic humor, are you equally well informed as to Québecker culture? The similarities are quite large, even to the well known focus on laïcité as a political philosophy.

And your commen,t justifying a ban on the veil, complete with your defining it as "the militant female uniform of a totalitarian ideology, political Islam" defines your world view while saying nothing about veiled Muslim women.

[Albertoo]

103. I know the song, doesn't relate to our discussion

As for the Québec culture, you, as a specimen, demonstrate how Gallic* humor gets lost over the Atlantic. (* I suppose mediterranean humor in general can be quite un-PC)

Regarding your last comment, the words themselves show that you err:

defining it as "the militant female uniform of a totalitarian ideology, political Islam" defines your world view while saying nothing about veiled Muslim women.

full face veiled women ARE wearing the female uniform of a totalitarian ideology. In Muslim countries, they are mostly forced to do so. In western countries, it's either recent immigrants or female militants of that radical ideology.

Stating these neutral facts gives you absolutely no indication of my world view other than the fact I am not too sold on an ideology that chops the hands of thieves, lapidates adulterers and doles a spectrum of punishments to gay people ranging from prison (most Muslim countries) to being thrown from tall buildings (ISIS) all the way via more common forms of death penalty (a handful of Muslim countries)

[guillaumeb]

104. There is nothing neutral about your characterization of Muslims.

And nothing you assert proves anything but that you have a very negative view of Islam and Muslims.

Give a poster some straw and a broad brush and that poster might be able to construct a tower of disinformation.

[Albertoo]

105. My view is parfectly neutral, yours is not

Ever since we started discussing this point, I state facts, not opinions
- that the full veil is the uniform of political Islam (it's not canonical)
- that the current mainstream interpretation of Islam mandates punishing gays
- that half the world's Muslims support the death penalty for imaginary crimes

Stating facts can surprise someone like you who invents things to fit his pet ideas
(your invented Quran ayah or your erroneous claim the hadiths are commentaries)

While you go on chanting I have an agenda (which?), or hold a global view of ALL Muslims (not true, and not on display either), which pretty much makes you the expert at the straw men and broad brushes you so generously lend me.

[guillaumeb]

112. Your view is filtered through the lens of your own beliefs.

Try to remember that even if you really believe something, really want to believe something, that does not make it true.

[Albertoo]

123. I try to believe as few things as possible, I'm an empiricist

[guillaumeb]

124. A fan of empire?

Joke.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. There are considerable examples of continental french being unable to understand canadian french

sitcoms and soap operas just like Brazilians have trouble understanding Continental Portuguese sitcoms and soap operas.

So, 'fraid your objection is meaningless.

[guillaumeb]

118. I sometimes have problems with "Southern" pronounciation.

And I just recently learned what "mush" is. But that hardly applies here. I have travelled in Europe, in France and Belgium, and never encountered problems with being understood.

And you might be surprised how much cross Atlantic cultural exchange there is.

Not that the following indicates anything other than anecdote, but I have three French citizen friends who live in my area for parts of the year. We discussed the CH attack after it happened. All three were in agreement that CH does sometimes cross the line from satire to racist attack. Again, this is indicative only of a tiny sample of three people. But anti-Semitism and Islamophobia do occur in society, presumably even among cartoonists and journalists.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. I don't speak any flavor of french.

I was able to decipher every single allegedly racist or anti-Semitic cartoon the aforementioned CH critic threw up.
Without context, yes, some will appear quite racist at a glance. I was unable to find any that truly were, in context.

Also, that poster eventually got banned for thinly veiled sexist attacks on Hillary, which I found ironic, given this particular kerfuffle.

[guillaumeb]

121. I had no idea about the Clinton incidents. Interesting and ironic.

And my comments about satire and what is allowable stand.

Dieudonné is a comic/satirist who has been convicted of hate speech. Ironically, for inciting racial hatred. He is from Cameroon, which may or may not be a factor, but certain topics are off-limits in France as far as satire. Freedom for some is a bit different from freedom for all.

Perhaps the cartoonists at CH should challenge legal restrictions on allowable speech.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Seems like it's in their job description...

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. Albertoo did refer to this, but you don't seem to have picked it up

(he mentioned "mass abduction and rape&quot .

Why Context Matters

Even the Boko Haram image, the one that seems to defy explanation and understanding can be read. In this cartoon, there are a group of women, all pregnant, all angrily shouting ‘Touchez pas a nos allocs’ (‘Hands off our welfare’.).The legend reads ‘Les Esclaves Sexuelles De Boko Haram en Colère’ (The Angry Sex Slaves of Boko Haram’.)

Everything about it suggests that they are treating the victims of kidnapping and sexual slavery as the welfare queen of conservative nightmares. But the immediate reading does not take into account Charlie Hebdo’s tradition of combining two topics into one image. In this case, in addition to the news about Boko Haram, Charlie was taking on the issue of potential cuts to welfare. Through this combination, they mock the French anxieties, giving life to nightmares through reductio ad absurdum: victims of violence are the greatest threat to France. This is the Right’s nightmare vision of the welfare queen. It is a Charlie Hebdo version of Stephen Colbert.

http://souciant.com/2015/01/why-context-matters/

You can tell it's not just a straightforward attack on Muslim women in France, because it explicitly names them as the Boko Haram slaves; but they don't get welfare, so we know there's more to it than just an attack on a real group of women. As the article I kink says, you may or may not thinks it works well, but the context of what the news was when the cartoon is published is useful.

[guillaumeb]

114. Thank you for the link. A very interesting article.

And while I understand the author's point, a very well expressed point, it seems to me that the same point could have been expressed in another way. If, speaking here of the "touchez-pas" cartoon, the women had been white European looking women, the same point about cutting social welfare spending could have been made while also speaking to the generalization that "only" non-Europeans get welfare.

Again, this is my personal view, but far too many CH cartoons traffic in the images of blacks, Muslims, and Jews that do play to the far right stereotypes. And the context that I referred to also includes governmental actions that are specifically directed against Muslims. One example was the "regulation prohibiting the veil at the beach" controversy.

This context assumes also that all viewers share the same advantages. It is far easier for a French citizen who "looks French" and has a French name to laugh at things that do not directly affect her/him. But citizens with Muslim names, citizens who are treated differently, citizens who live in slums and have far less access to jobs are far less likely to see the humor in stereotypes.

And this context also ignores the fact that supposed French tolerance for dissent has limits. It does not extend to mocking the tricouleur or doubting the Holocaust. So the weapon of satire cannot be aimed at everything.

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. But it was using a specific story from that month about Boko Haram holding girls/women

and using them as sex slaves, so those women would have been Nigerian and dressed, by force, in burqas or similar attire.

Your point about advantages and disadvantages is a good one, and Charlie Hebdo isn't the kind of magazine I'd expect to have wise, well-rounded opinions on things, and recognise the privilege that they may have as established French citizens - and, as rug showed in another post in this thread, they have sometimes crossed the line into racism, for me and for most people, I'd think. But I don't think they are in general a bigoted or uncaring institution.

[guillaumeb]

126. Nice points, and I agree that your first point about this one specific cartoon is correct.

But I am also aware of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim sentiment in France.

Thanks

[Goblinmonger]

30. You do know that those cartoons were satirizing the racism of France, right?

I mean they weren't saying that Arabs were coming to Paris to rape the white women. They were lampooning those that argued that. I realize satire is often lost on people, but you might want to make sure you get their point before you bash it.

[trotsky]

31. Facts have no place on this topic, GM. You and I both know that by now.

Charlie Hebdo was a bunch of racist Islamophobic haters who intentionally looked to infuriate peaceful Muslims and they got their comeuppance. That's the official story and to question it means you're Islamophobic and probably racist too. Somehow.

[guillaumeb]

39. So using the images and memes of the far right is attacking the right?

Try explaining that to the rightists who love CH. Satire is truly brave when directed against the powerful, but appropriating images of despised minorities that were used by dictators is not, in my opinion, the way to do so.

[Albertoo]

48. "Try explaining that to the rightists who love CH"???

That's a beaut.

I am personally unaware of such a species: rightists who loved Charlie Hebdo.

They were few and far between before the murderous attacks committed on religious grounds.

[trotsky]

51. If we ask the people whose lives were affected by terrorism,

I think they would feel that terrorists are pretty powerful. But if you say they aren't, so be it.

[Goblinmonger]

54. There were RW idiots that loved them some Archie Bunker, too.

Does that mean that Archie Bunker was a right wing show? Or is it possible that they didn't get the satire.

Well, since you aren't a satirist or someone trained to analyze satire, your opinion on what is good satire seems to not be all that important at this point.

[rug]

43. Like this?

How did you like Julius Streicher's "satire"?

[Goblinmonger]

55. Both of those are rough, for sure

I recommend you refer to #47 above. He does a nice job explaining the gallows humor that doesn't play well in the US. The 2nd one in particular makes a pretty stunning point while admittedly not being in the line of what we are used to in the US.

[rug]

56. "Rough"? A rather subtued adjective for rank anti-semitism.

As to post #47, "Second, for your broad brush, totally unsubstantiated claims that Charlie Hebdo would display antisemitism and racism, it's so far off the mark I won't bother. Ask a few Frenchmen if they feel these epithets apply to Charlie Hebdo, and they'll probably laugh it off." is hardly a good explanation of anything, let alone gallows humor. It does provide an opportunity to observe the irony of that poster accusing anyone, repeat, anyone, on this board of using a broad brush.

As to gallows humor, it does not employ vicious ethnic or racial stereotypes in the course of making light of a hopeless situation. The use of such stereotypes is called something much different. There is no such thing as crematoria humor either. In the U.S. or anywhere.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. I presume it's the top one you're talking about, then

The bottom one was a Charlie Hebdo cover; the top one is a parody of it, by "Joe Le Corbeau".

http://www.lci.fr/societe/shoah-hebdo-quand-des-medias-confondent-charlie-hebdo-et-sa-parodie-sulfureuse-1520056.html

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.lci.fr/societe/shoah-hebdo-quand-des-medias-confondent-charlie-hebdo-et-sa-parodie-sulfureuse-1520056.html&prev=search

http://www.directmatin.fr/france/2014-01-29/qui-est-joe-le-corbeau-le-dessinateur-proche-de-dieudonne-653162

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.directmatin.fr/france/2014-01-29/qui-est-joe-le-corbeau-le-dessinateur-proche-de-dieudonne-653162&prev=search

[rug]

59. And a damn good parody it is. Couldn't even tell the difference.

Google gish or no, it's still anti-Semitic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. But it wasn't drawn by a CH artist, or published by them

which is pretty important for this thread.

[rug]

62. No, it isn't. But there are dozens that were.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. So you tried to hijack the thread by posting something not from CH?

Without making it clear it wasn't from CH? Oh well, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

[rug]

74. Oh, get off your high horse, muriel.

I understand you're not pleased that your attempt to hijack this story when it appeared over the weekend went nowhere.

But there's no "hijacking" going on here. It's impossible to hijack flame bait.

I won't tell you what I expect from you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. "hijack this story when it appeared over the weekend"? This is the first thread about it

Stop just making shit up, rug, especially when it involves accusing someone else of something.

You posted a false claim about what Charlie Hebdo published. You try to excuse your negligence and/or malice by saying "I don't like the thread, so I can say what the fuck I want in it". That's not how life works, rug. I'd have hoped you'd have learned that by now.

This is more of what everyone expects from you, rug.

[rug]

83. Oh, have you forgotten already, muriel?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218238859

I'm surprised your reply was #3.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. That's a story about the SPLC and Maajid Nawaz.

This is about Charlie Hebdo and a Muslim who worked for it. What the fuck are you on about, rug? Stop wasting people's time with red herrings.

[Fix The Stupid]

73. I have a question for people of faith...

When boldly caught lying and fabricating their positions, do believers just chalk that up to "the ends justifies the means"?

Do they just think "I can lie, make shit up, and then just ask for forgiveness later.."?

Questions that need answers.

[rug]

75. Why don't you point out where that happened.

I have a question for you. Does every criticism of antitheists generate the same reflex?

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. And the 'Google gish' was to explain to you, and anyone else, who the artist was

and make it clear it wasn't published by Charlie Hebdo. 2 links, with translations, is hardly a 'gish gallop'.

[rug]

76. Charlie Hebdo is still an anti-semitic rag.

Feel free to post as many links as you need to defend it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. Your posts are just name calling. You can't ever admit when you're wrong.

You make false accusations. It's like taking part in a 2016 presidential debate ...

[rug]

81. That is one of the more ludicrous things you've typed in here.

[Goblinmonger]

58. Oooh, are you going to change your post

or just continue the lie that both of these are CH covers?

[rug]

60. Change it of course. There are so many others to pick from.

[Goblinmonger]

65. Are you familiar with the movie the first one is referring to?

It's a pretty solid reference.

[rug]

77. Except the movie has no anti-semitic references.

[Goblinmonger]

82. Yeah, but it does deal with classism

and two different groups being put together that normally wouldn't.

And, much like you and Hebdo, it got a lot of criticism for being racist when the French saw nothing of the kind because they understood the actual point that was being made which Americans have little to no clue about.

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. It's a play on words. The cartoonist is saying religions claim they are 'untouchable'

and must not be mocked. That is not "anti-semitic". It is anti-religion.

[rug]

95. That must explain the large noses and hitleresque caricatures.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. Large noses are a typical feature of cartoons

Maybe you haven't seen any before. Here, for instance, was their cover of the issue before the mass murder:



I have no idea what you mean by "hitleresque caricatures". I've seen nothing from CH that looks like Nazi publications, anything Hitler drew, of Hilter himself. Just a failed attempt to Godwinize the thread, I suppose.

[rug]

99. In certain quarters.

If you really need an introduction to hitleresque caricatures . . . .




Charlie Hebdo . . . .




Bahrain, 2002

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. So, utterly different styles, then

And we see that for the CH cartoonist, he draws everyone with the same kind of face with a big nose, whether the Orthodox Jew, or the man criticising him. So, there's no racial stereotyping involved at all.

[rug]

102. Oh, yes, utterly different.

Why are you defending this shit? Simply because it's anti-theist?

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. I don't think religion is above mocking, or should get special protection

I don't think blasphemy is a problem. More importantly, I don't like people making false accusations of anti-semitism. You spread hatred that way.

[rug]

108. Who does?

The point here is these cartoons are not simply mocking, they are classically, not falsely, anti-semitic, toward both Jews and Arabs.

It also blithely prints racist cartoons.



Racism is not above mocking, or should get special protection.

Sorry, muriel, but you're way off base here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. Again, the black woman is saying she is being treated like a slave

That cartoon is on the side of the woman being exploited as a surrogate mother.

And who thinks religion should get special treatment? Plenty of people. Those who object to cartoons of Mohammed. Those who think religion gives an employer the right to limit the healthcare of their employees. Those who think religion should get special tax treatment.

[rug]

110. Ah, the same Gallican humor that reveres Jerry Lewis.

Drawing a black person crawling on a leash is an edgy way to fight racism.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/14/charlie_hebdo_adds_to_its_long_history_of_racist_cartoons_by_portraying_dead_refugee_babies_as_future_monkey_rapists/

It's racist. Period.

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. That one is racist, yes

Because it has drawn him as a monkey, and it's not from his point of view - just a wild claim he'd molest women. Even if that exact claim had been made by another racist, I can't see it as lampooning it.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. NYC_SKP is that you?

[guillaumeb]

115. I do not understand your reference. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

117. First person I noticed that liked to attack Hebdo with bullshit claims of racism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218176134

[guillaumeb]

119. Thank you. I understand your reference.

Now when this was said:

They don't live in a bubble, there are innocent people around them would could, and did, suffer from the blowback.
More generally, meeting hatred with insult rarely produces results.

It's not that their provocative cartoons are not well deserved, my question is how productive can they hope to have ever been?
It's simply not the tool I would use to try to persuade people to think differently; I would have expected more anger and violence and that's what they got.

I agree with the poster. Mockery and insults are never a way to promote understanding. If I insult you it is not likely that you will listen as I explain why I insulted you. Not that mockery and insults should ever be answered with violence.

[exboyfil]

4. I always thought it was a stupid way to describe it

It is like most religions and has a blood soaked history. Adherents that have liberal democratic values can be good citizens just like Christians. They can practice their religion just like Christians, and the state should protect their right to do that.

It all depends on which passages of your holy books you plan to emphasize and follow.

[jonno99]

6. Seriously? Silly logic - and a divisive & inflammatory OP.

"What is a moderate Islamist? An Islamist who doesn’t kill?”

So what is wrong with this question then: what is a moderate Atheist? An Atheist who doesn’t kill?

I guess you think it will be "peace through derision & division"?

No thanks.

[trotsky]

8. You'll have to direct your comments at the journalist who wrote it.

Who is fortunate to be alive, while many of her completely innocent colleagues were gunned down by Islamists.

Perhaps she has a different perspective on things, and rather than just reflexively attacking her, we should listen?

[jonno99]

11. It's truly great to see you being so open-minded.

I look forward to seeing you exercise this (apparently new) standard on all posts with which you take exception:

Perhaps {he/she} has a different perspective on things, and rather than just reflexively attacking {him/her}, we should listen?

[trotsky]

14. So, no answer, but instead a personal attack.

I'm sure Jesus would approve.

[guillaumeb]

19. I join you in this praise. Tolerance is always to be encouraged. eom

[procon]

87. Then you're saying she's writing from a position of her grief and victimhood.

This is not to be confused with actual journalism. It her personal anecdote, her heartfelt opinion, her emotional story and as such it is neither right or wrong, but merely her own -- as you say -- 'perspective on things'.

BTAIM, I do criticize you for dropping off another anti-Muslim thread without comment or caution, attempting to exploit the writer's pain and holding up her emotional outpouring as a legitimate criticism of an entire legion. The word 'Islamists' is used as a slur by those who share rightwing views, but even that not so subtle bigotry won't persuade anyone here to hate Muslims.

[mwrguy]

12. “ISIL is not Islamic." - Barack Obama

Obama knows what he's talking about.

[stone space]

17. Uh-oh...our President is about to get a lesson on internet memes.

“ISIL is not Islamic." - Barack Obama

[trotsky]

25. Not really.

When it comes to Islam, he has an opinion, just like everyone else.

All the soldiers of ISIL/ISIS think they're Islamic. Why won't you allow them to self-identify?

[trotsky]

33. That's it.

I'm done with you. Saying I'm defending ISIS? You've passed the point of no return with me. Welcome to my ignore list. Say hi to rug.

[stone space]

34. You are upset because I disagree with ISIS? Seriously?

All the soldiers of ISIL/ISIS think they're Islamic. Why won't you allow them to self-identify?

Why should we allow ISIS to slander the religion of the vast majority of their victims?

Here at DU, people are allowed to disagree with ISIS.

It's just too bad if that offends you.

I suggest that you put anybody who disagrees with ISIS on ignore.

When you try to use the No True Scotsman internet meme as a polygraph machine to determine whether ISIS is telling the truth or lying, you are engaging in pseudoscience, not science.

I'm an atheist.

You can't expect me to buy your silly pseudoscientific theories, especially when you are using them to argue that ISIS speaks truth.

[rug]

44. Say hi to mr blur.

[stone space]

35. President Obama is right and ISIS is wrong.

Last edited Tue Nov 1, 2016, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Not really.

When it comes to Islam, he has an opinion, just like everyone else.

All the soldiers of ISIL/ISIS think they're Islamic. Why won't you allow them to self-identify?

Name three things that ISIS has done to earn our respect.

Please be specific.

[no_hypocrisy]

26. Local fallacy of hasty generalization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/100/Hasty_Generalization


DASH/ISIL is a relatively small minority within the religion of Islam. They do not represent the majority.

[trotsky]

27. And you've just committed a straw man fallacy.

No one is saying that all Muslims, or even a majority of them, are violent.

What is being said is that the foundational documents of Islam call for violence in some situations. So do the foundational documents of Christianity and Judaism. Do you disagree with that?

[no_hypocrisy]

28. Damn, point taken.

Hard to be logical, isn't it?

[trotsky]

29. It's why this topic is so hard to discuss, yet so important.

Any attempt to have a discussion about violence finding roots in religion is usually met with knee-jerk defense of religion (which itself arises from bigotry against non-believers, because obviously if someone can't be religious and violent, they must be non-religious!). A true discussion must look at ALL the factors, and not just simply rule out the ones we don't want to be part of the analysis.

I mean, let's face it, the people who wrote those texts lived in a primitive and violent world. Their holy texts are naturally going to be primitive and violent. Centuries of the human experience have given us much better ways to look at morality and justice - but they are complicated and require thought. Far too many people - even allegedly liberal and tolerant folks - would rather just point to a book and claim all our answers are there. And when you point out that clearly some parts of that book are NOT all that great, it upsets them, and they lash out.

[asiliveandbreathe]

80. Pick a religion, henny religion - in the name of religion

seems to me - there is good and bad..henny religion...

[procon]

85. On a run with the anti-Muslim threads today, yeah? nt

[procon]

88. You keep using that phrase. Are you going to delete this thread too? nt

[Lordquinton]

93. There is no such thing as a religion of peace

The phrase "Islam is a religion of peace" is accepted at face value, and enforced brutally. Question it and you're the monster.

It's the same thing as the god hypothesis, if you're making the claim, you need to put up the evidence. Islam's history disproves the phrase. Same with Christianity's history.

[LeftishBrit]

124. I have no sympathy with far-right murderous nutcases of any religion...

but we should be cautious about anything that appears in the Express. It was always an unreliable British tabloid, and in recent years has become to UKIP what Pravda was to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

[Iggo]

125. There is no religion of peace.