Charlie Hebdo

ballysmate

@VTech
Not a race or religious matter?

Sajid Javed, the Muslim Secretary of State for Culture.

‘There is no getting away from the fact that the people carrying out these acts call themselves Muslim.
‘The lazy answer from people out there would be to say that this has got nothing to do with Islam and Muslims and that should end the debate. That would be lazy and wrong. You can’t get away from the fact that these people are using Islam . . . as their tool to carry out their horrible activities.’

bernithebiker

Imposter wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Anybody on here buying this weeks copy?

or indeed any other copy previously..?

In fact - how many people had even heard of 'Charlie Hebdo' before last week..??

In response to the 3 questions;

No.

No, but often read copies (at friends, in the doctors; etc)

Yes.

slowmart

mamba80 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

And as night follows day…..


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... f-war.html


The protection this false muslim is afforded under the laws of this land would not be reciprocated under an Islamic state. :evil:

why is he false?

His views are well documented, this extreme Islamic wants a Caliphate under Islamic law. That means the law of the land is displaced and wants freedom, not in the sense that we understand freedom, but freedom from democracy. Every aspect of life would be subservient to the Caliphate and we've seen the persecution of not only non Muslim but the "wrong" Muslim.

His views are narrow and are at the extreme end of his faith and Hamas have stated the actions of the extremists in Paris have hurt Muslims more than the offending images. Thats Hamas, not known for their liberal views.


Apart from a false Muslim, which I paraphrased from the brother of a serving Police officer who described his brothers killer as a false Muslim, how else would you describe him? In words which we can see on the forum and won't get you banned?

These people have no place in our society, he stops short of incitement, but is part of the engine which fuels these acts. His hands are bloody as the extremists in Paris and it's a pity an extension of the law of joint enterprise cannot be used to prosecute this individual.

mr_goo

I think I will buy half a dozen copies and try to re-sell them outside the Bournemouth mosque at Friday lunchtime. Anyone willing to post bail for me?


Is this Mohammed?

tailwindhome

how many people had even heard of 'Charlie Hebdo' before last week..??

Never heard of it before
Assumed when I first heard the news that it was a person.

bernithebiker

TailWindHome wrote:

how many people had even heard of 'Charlie Hebdo' before last week..??

Never heard of it before
Assumed when I first heard the news that it was a person.

Hebdo is short for Hebdomadaire, which means weekly.

VTech

Ballysmate wrote:

@VTech
Not a race or religious matter?

Sajid Javed, the Muslim Secretary of State for Culture.

‘There is no getting away from the fact that the people carrying out these acts call themselves Muslim.
‘The lazy answer from people out there would be to say that this has got nothing to do with Islam and Muslims and that should end the debate. That would be lazy and wrong. You can’t get away from the fact that these people are using Islam . . . as their tool to carry out their horrible activities.’

I stand by my comment, it is people using islam as a reasoning for doing these acts but as we know, islamic laws do not mean murder those you disagree with. It doesn't tell people to shoot a child in the face for going to school or to stone a woman to death because her husband believes she cheated on him.

arran77

Mr Goo wrote:

I think I will buy half a dozen copies and try to re-sell them outside the Bournemouth mosque at Friday lunchtime. Anyone willing to post bail for me?


Is this Mohammed?

I'll start a whip round for you

pinno

These young highly strung sexually frustrated misogynistic men who are vulnerable to being radicalised need to learn to ride bicycles.

@Vtech - you deal with Saudi's don't you?

mr_goo

Just a thought but will this British institution have to change their name for fear of reprisals from murderous Shiites or Sunnis with AK47 and Semtex. They are after all one of the longest running insulters of Islam. I expect David Camoron to make an announcement on this highly sensitive situation very shortly.

arran77

Only if you get murderous Shiites or Sunnis with AK47 and Semtex who also have blue rinses

slowmart

VTech wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

@VTech


I stand by my comment, it is people using islam as a reasoning for doing these acts but as we know, islamic laws do not mean murder those you disagree with. It doesn't tell people to shoot a child in the face for going to school or to stone a woman to death because her husband believes she cheated on him.

According to Radical preacher Anjem Choudray

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... f-war.html

Radical cleric Mr Choudary said "ridiculing" Mohammed is attacking his personality, and said these actions are "extremely serious", adding that if the "act of war" was to be tried in a Shariah Court it would carry capital punishment.
"It's not just a cartoon, it's insulting, it's ridiculing, it's provoking," he said.
The lecturer in Shariah law, who was arrested in September as part of an investigation into Islamist terrorism, added: "These things always have a history of coming back and biting them. People are not going to forget. Muslims will never forget what these people did.
"And I'm sure there's someone somewhere who will take the law into his own hands. It's inevitable.
"There will be repercussions. I think there will be someone somewhere who will retaliate."

The extremists view that applying Shariah Law the verdict is death, regardless of the laws of the land and freedom of speech which ironocally protects the rights of the extremist. So disagreeing with an Islamic extremist can mean murder, justifiable in the head of the perpetrator but abhorrent to a civilised society.

mr_goo

Asghar Bukhari (Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK) has been spouting off lately on Sky and BBC against the publication of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. On Sky News he repeatedly claimed that the cartoonists were racist. Which is so far from the reality. In 2013 he even justified the murder of Lee Rigby on BBC, yet BBC Radio 5 Live invited him on to Nicky Campbell's phone in this morning. Again he was claiming that Charlie Hebdo were racist.The BBC are guilty in giving airtime to extremist/political muslims who have absolutely no right to live in a free and democratic western country.

In another news article on BBC Radio 5 Live today one of their roving reporters was interview students in Leicester (or Birmingham, cannot remember). However they were all of muslim faith and without exception they thought the cartoons were an insult. But what really struck me was that they were exceptionally terrible in trying to put across any coherent argument as to why its an insult. I would go so far as to say they all sounded quite thick. Indeed when you listen to Asghar Bukhari, whilst he tries to speak with a posh accent, he really has very little going on between the ears. Other than a hateful rhetoric, that many politicised muslims seem to repeat time after time.

slowmart

Mr Goo wrote:

Just a thought but will this British institution have to change their name for fear of reprisals from murderous Shiites or Sunnis with AK47 and Semtex. They are after all one of the longest running insulters of Islam. I expect David Camoron to make an announcement on this highly sensitive situation very shortly.

Hopefully it means a few Islamic extremists will be off to extremist hell for having their prayer mats pointed the wrong way. That said number 11 kill a christian and off to heaven……….

ballysmate

VTech wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

And as night follows day…..


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... f-war.html


The protection this false muslim is afforded under the laws of this land would not be reciprocated under an Islamic state. :evil:

why is he false?

The problem we have is that from what I gather, you just can't make pictures of Mohamed and if you do it is a very bad thing so being the good honourable people we are we should understand how this would effect many people and refrain from doing so.
I travel to the middle east a lot and am yet to meet a bad "muslim" although the news here and in the USA would have you believe the opposite. Media hype is very bad both here and the USA and although I realise that their are very bad people who carry out these atrocities, I am also not stupid enough to think that all muslims think the same way.

This really isn't a race or religion matter, its just a few people using that as an excuse.

The magazine are making a huge mistake, any logically thinking person can see this but instead of logic, people are using anger to make their decisions which is something I have done in the past year for a personal matter and all that has happened is that I've ended up in a worse place than when I started.

Much better to not publish, view, think about this publication imo.

People may or may not be offended, but there is one saying that Muslims should learn. Perhaps they should recite it at prayers.

DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER.

The mayor of Rotterdam says it perfectly.

finchy

Tangled Metal wrote:

BTW I agree they might not have published them to offend but I'm sure that they would have been aware of the offence. Directed satire would show that you are not cowed better than the blunderbus image of Mohammed that does offend all, including those Muslims who share your views on Jihadist terrorists.

The problem was that they were trying to provoke and offend, but not for the sake of giving offence. Charlie Hebdo were making the point that freedom of speech is more important than the freedom not to be offended. Satirising extremists wouldn't have had much of an effect - everyone from Osama Bin Laden to hate preachers in Britain has been satirised in this country, with no negative consequences whatsoever. Whether or not you agree with their actions, or even that this point needed to be made, the only way that they could achieve their aim was by publishing something blasphemous.

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

I find parts of the Koran and I have to say, the Bible offensive.
How many copies of these books are published and circulated.
If you are to ban the publications of pictures of prophets and religious icons, can we not have these offensive books withdrawn as they are offensive to atheists? Of course not. But where would you draw the line?

I wonder if these books could be banned for incitement to violence?

Deuteronomy 17:12 wrote:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.

Leviticus 20:13 wrote:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Leviticus 21:9 wrote:

A priest's daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.

etc.

ballysmate

God loves you. :roll:

pinno

Ballysmate wrote:

God loves you. :roll:

No he bloody doesn't. If only I had a direct line...

ddraver

johnfinch wrote:

Leviticus 20:13 wrote:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Leviticus 21:9 wrote:

A priest's daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.

etc.

Stieg Larsson fan?

arran77

johnfinch wrote:

Deuteronomy 17:12 wrote:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.

Leviticus 20:13 wrote:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Leviticus 21:9 wrote:

A priest's daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.

etc.

I don't know a huge amount about the various books and what they mean but I suspect that quoting isolated exerts slightly misinterprets it's meaning

It's a bit like when these extremist Muslims quote the works of the Prophet in isolation and say it justifies what they do.......no it doesn't.... when you read the quoted extract as a part of the whole work as it was intended you get an entirely different meaning

finchy

ddraver wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Leviticus 20:13 wrote:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Leviticus 21:9 wrote:

A priest's daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.

etc.

Stieg Larsson fan?

No.

pblakeney

ddraver wrote:

Stieg Larsson fan?

Was he the guy in Top Gear?

finchy

arran77 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Deuteronomy 17:12 wrote:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.

Leviticus 20:13 wrote:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Leviticus 21:9 wrote:

A priest's daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.

etc.

I don't know a huge amount about the various books and what they mean but I suspect that quoting isolated exerts slightly misinterprets it's meaning

It's a bit like when these extremist Muslims quote the works of the Prophet in isolation and say it justifies what they do.......no it doesn't.... when you read the quoted extract as a part of the whole work as it was intended you get an entirely different meaning

I think that those particular parts of the Bible are fairly straightforward in their instructions. Of course, it would be fair to point out that these verses are countermanded by Jesus's instruction that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, which is how the CofE, Quaker, Methodist types would probably see things, the problem is the nutjob variety of Christians, such as the politicians in Uganda who have made homosexuality a death penalty offence.

ballysmate

arran77 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Deuteronomy 17:12 wrote:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.

Leviticus 20:13 wrote:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Leviticus 21:9 wrote:

A priest's daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.

etc.

I don't know a huge amount about the various books and what they mean but I suspect that quoting isolated exerts slightly misinterprets it's meaning

It's a bit like when these extremist Muslims quote the works of the Prophet in isolation and say it justifies what they do.......no it doesn't.... when you read the quoted extract as a part of the whole work as it was intended you get an entirely different meaning

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Lev ... hapter-20/

Not much ambiguity here Arran.

finchy

I would love to be the person who made all that stuff up. If I could create a new religion there'd be a bloody death for just about anything. 8)

MisterMuncher

johnfinch wrote:

arran77 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Deuteronomy 17:12 wrote:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.

Leviticus 20:13 wrote:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Leviticus 21:9 wrote:

A priest's daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.

etc.

I don't know a huge amount about the various books and what they mean but I suspect that quoting isolated exerts slightly misinterprets it's meaning

It's a bit like when these extremist Muslims quote the works of the Prophet in isolation and say it justifies what they do.......no it doesn't.... when you read the quoted extract as a part of the whole work as it was intended you get an entirely different meaning

I think that those particular parts of the Bible are fairly straightforward in their instructions. Of course, it would be fair to point out that these verses are countermanded by Jesus's instruction that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, which is how the CofE, Quaker, Methodist types would probably see things, the problem is the nutjob variety of Christians, such as the politicians in Uganda who have made homosexuality a death penalty offence.

Which is then subsequently countermanded by Jebus' proclamation that not one jot or tittle of the law would be changing.

Yer average holy book is a Rorschach test at best.

finchy

^^^ Good point. I just don't know what to do...

arran77

johnfinch wrote:

arran77 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Deuteronomy 17:12 wrote:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.

Leviticus 20:13 wrote:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Leviticus 21:9 wrote:

A priest's daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.

etc.

I don't know a huge amount about the various books and what they mean but I suspect that quoting isolated exerts slightly misinterprets it's meaning

It's a bit like when these extremist Muslims quote the works of the Prophet in isolation and say it justifies what they do.......no it doesn't.... when you read the quoted extract as a part of the whole work as it was intended you get an entirely different meaning

I think that those particular parts of the Bible are fairly straightforward in their instructions. Of course, it would be fair to point out that these verses are countermanded by Jesus's instruction that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, which is how the CofE, Quaker, Methodist types would probably see things, the problem is the nutjob variety of Christians, such as the politicians in Uganda who have made homosexuality a death penalty offence.

I think a lot of this would be deemed wrong in modern society as our attitudes towards things like homosexuality have changed but you have to remember that when the Bible was written these were peoples beliefs no matter how unreasonable they now seem to us.

There will be parts of the Christian faith who still interpret these things literally like the nutjob Ugandan politicians as you put it but also as you say, these verses will be interpreted in a more rational way by the more mainstream elements of Christianity.

finchy

I know all that. I was just responding to Bally's point about how some people might feel that the traditional texts are offensive to some people. I do wonder what would happen if a feminist or homosexual rights group tried to prosecute a bookseller under incitement to hatred/violence laws.