Jump to content

Charlie Hebdo


Pickles
 Share

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Pickles"]There was an interesting item on Radio 4's Today programme this morning. A muslim shopkeeper (from Slough IIRC?) was shown a copy of the current Charlie Hebdo cover page and he immediately said that it was an affront and deeply offensive to him and all muslims. It was then explained to him what it meant, and he backtracked a smidgen, but even so he still went on to condone the murder of people who offend muslims.

Now, I think that he may have been "ambushed", but his knee-jerk reaction was offensive to me. I hope that he is given the opportunity to reflect on what he said "in the heat of the moment" and retracts his disgusting and deeply offensive statements.

[/quote]

I am as ignorant as other people posting on this thread of the details of Islam, but I understand from a muslin friend that any representation is regarded as blasphemous.

In our own history:

In 1656, the Quaker James Naylor was sentenced to flogging, branding and the piercing of his tongue by a red-hot poker

The death penalty for blasphemy was abolished in 1676...

By the law of Scotland, as it originally stood, the punishment of blasphemy was death,a penalty last imposed on Thomas Aikenhead in Edinburgh in 1697

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Listened to a Muslim academic on BBC news this morning and she said that it was not absolutely forbidden to make images of the prophet and that indeed there were representations that existed that were revered by Muslims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in the fall-out from this:

1) "God's Gift" to comedians is under arrest for condoning terrorism

2) Zemmour is under police protection having received death threats

3) 54 people are under investigation for publicly condoning terrorism. One case:

http://www.midilibre.fr/2015/01/14/apologie-d-acte-terroriste-un-homme-condamne-a-six-mois-de-prison-ferme-en-isere,1110773.php

involves a bloke who said (amongst other things) "They killed Charlie: I laughed" in front of police officers. He has copped a 6 months prison sentence. His lawyer reckons that he is a bit thick, and said that this no-doubt devout muslim was also somewhat under the influence of alcohol.

I really don't understand why some of the hate preachers in the UK haven't been prosecuted ... unless of course the point is that they want the publicity ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mac"]Listened to a Muslim academic on BBC news this morning and she said that it was not absolutely forbidden to make images of the prophet and that indeed there were representations that existed that were revered by Muslims.[/quote]

Yes, Mac, I heard that interview too.  Just goes to show that they interpret things (and by "they", I mean Christians as well) the way they wish and make things up as they go along with little foundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="NormanH"]

In our own history:

In 1656, the Quaker James Naylor was sentenced to flogging, branding and the piercing of his tongue by a red-hot poker

The death penalty for blasphemy was abolished in 1676...

By the law of Scotland, as it originally stood, the punishment of blasphemy was death,a penalty last imposed on Thomas Aikenhead in Edinburgh in 1697[/quote]

Yes, indeed, but we for the most part grew out of that particularly stupid phase quite some time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="NormanH"]

I am as ignorant as other people posting on this thread of the details of Islam, but I understand from a muslin friend that any representation is regarded as blasphemous.

[/quote]

The article below on the BBC website gives an interesting commentary ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30813742

So, although the Koran doesn't forbid such pictures, people might be tempted to worship a picture of god (or the prophet or whatever), and that would be a bad thing, so someone along the line has made up a rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="mint"][quote user="Mac"]Listened to a Muslim academic on BBC news this morning and she said that it was not absolutely forbidden to make images of the prophet and that indeed there were representations that existed that were revered by Muslims.[/quote]

Yes, Mac, I heard that interview too.  Just goes to show that they interpret things (and by "they", I mean Christians as well) the way they wish and make things up as they go along with little foundation.

[/quote]

The Old Testament went rather further in its definition of graven images. Good job that most people don't get het up over breaking some of the clauses in Exodus: and IIRC Leviticus is full of wonderful stuff that memorably provided the fictional President Bartlet with a tirade against the fundamentalist christian factions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting prices on Ebay (UK) today with one person asking £1,500 for a copy. Then there are the 'T' shirts and god knows what else. Always money to be made when people are murdered. Who's worse those that did the murders or those that exploit them?

p.s. - Didn't somebody from the US ask about geting a copy?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.XCharlie+Hebdo&_nkw=Charlie+Hebdo&_sacat=0

Edit - I see the French are complaining that somebody in Montpellier is selling them for 35€ a copy, if only they knew.

http://www.midilibre.fr/2015/01/15/montpellier-charlie-hebdo-revendu-35-eur-sur-le-trottoir,1111059.php#xtor=EPR-2-[Newsletter]-20150115-[Zone_info]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Hoddy"]When I first suggested Ebay yesterday you could get a pdf download for £4.95. The market is obviously volatile.

Hoddy[/quote]

Very - checkout this link for an Italian version LINK

£5000 [blink] (no bids at this time [Www])

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Alan Zoff"]I couldn't make up my mind whether the Pope in his speech in the Philippines was making a rather sick joke, condoning the recent violence, or both. But given the record of the papacy when it comes to violence against mankind, it's perhaps not so surprising.[/quote]

Given that Catholics are Christians there is a certain amount of 'head up ones a rse' when the likes of Farrage etc say we are a Christian society and we are proud to be Christian. Farrage and his kind are quick to point the finger at Muslims who allegedly groomed young girls but does not attack the Church of England or the Catholic Church for some of their members abuse of children and even multiple murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of musings:

On reading this:

http://www.midilibre.fr/2015/01/16/charlie-hebdo-violents-heurts-devant-le-consulat-de-france-a-karachi,1111818.php

Charlie Hebdo is not published in Pakistan: I suspect that it isn't even available there, but yet these idiots think that they should go out and protest about a magazine that they have never and will never see. Should we go and protest outside the Pakistani consulate against the offensive things that are published there, which advocate the killing of westerners?

On reading this:

http://www.midilibre.fr/2015/01/16/reims-le-maire-oppose-a-l-inhumation-des-freres-kouachi-dans-sa-commune,1111722.php

The US made sure that one terrorist leader's body was dealt with in such a way that the family didn't get to bury him, and there is no grave that could become a place of pilgrimage for people of a similar sick disposition. Why not do that with these?

Remember the victims, not the perpetrators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, IMO a very good idea.......... the modern equivalent of not being allowed to be buried on holy ground, so why not!

Unceramonious cremation and the ashes sent to the local tip......... which would be right in my opinion. Still at the moment 'we' collectively are too soft to take such action, but eventually, maybe it will come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Quillan"]

[quote user="Alan Zoff"]I couldn't make up my mind whether the Pope in his speech in the Philippines was making a rather sick joke, condoning the recent violence, or both. But given the record of the papacy when it comes to violence against mankind, it's perhaps not so surprising.[/quote]

Given that Catholics are Christians there is a certain amount of 'head up ones a rse' when the likes of Farrage etc say we are a Christian society and we are proud to be Christian. Farrage and his kind are quick to point the finger at Muslims who allegedly groomed young girls but does not attack the Church of England or the Catholic Church for some of their members abuse of children and even multiple murder.

[/quote]

I know, let's also excoriate Social Care Homes for troubled kids; Scoutmasters; Public Schools; MPs and Judges; all enjoy a sad record of paedophilia and child abuse.

Yes indeed, the Catholic Church could be roundly and soundly criticised for The Great Inquisition, (founded in 1478) and the deprivations of Torquemada (Died 1498).

However, us Brits were pretty adept at torture! Hanging, drawing and quartering started in 1351.

"Although the Act of Parliament

that defined high treason remains on the United Kingdom's statute

books, hanging, drawing and quartering was in 1814 downgraded to

drawing, hanging until dead, and posthumous beheading and quartering. It

was finally abolished in England in 1870."

However, this sort of practice was abolished many years ago: which didn't stop colonial exploiters putting bounties on the heads of Australian Aboriginals.

As were the Bushmen of South Africa.

"The majority of the San

were 'ethnically cleansed' for their land in South Africa by the Dutch who

landed in 1652, invading from the south, and by the Zulus and other blacks

migrating from the north. By the time of Custer's last stand (1876), no later

than Wounded Knee (1890), the last of the San had been exterminated in South

Africa, leaving only their haunting rock paintings, and a few of their genes in

the South African 'coloureds'.

The 'last' of the San

survived into the 20th century only in the world's fourth largest desert, the

Kalahari (Botswana, Namibia), despite a bounty on their heads into the early

1900's. This was simply because it was an inhospitable thorn-and-thirst land

avoided by all others. The San learned to live there despite there being no

surface water. The 70,000 or so Kalahari San that survive today are in Botswana

(40,000), Namibia (30,000), and a few in Angola, Zimbabwe and Zambia. They are

landless (except 2,000 in Namibia's Bushmanland), facing despair and 'death by

dispossession.
"

Hopefully, what we risibly describe as "Civilisation" has moved on a little since the dark ages.

I am most interested to know, Q, where, when and how either or the Catholic and Anglican churches committed " multiple murders"?

All of which is interesting and jolly exciting: however, today, it provides no convenient excuse or justification, for the heinous attacks by Islamists on innocent men women and children; they might like to self-justify in the name of Allah and the Prophet, and Holy Jihad: however, as so often a religion has been hijacked, its theology and creed airbrushed, to suit a selfish narrow agenda of a few lunatics and unwashed thugs.

The West has, to its own detriment, been interfering in what is more correctly called The Mid Orient (Ike Eisenhower first called the area "The Middle East) since substantively World War One. Such interference escalated during the Cold War and the subsequent geo-political ploys of the USA, Soviet Russia and, of course, the USA.

American manipulation of Iran, where CIA deposed the democratically elected PM, Mosaddegh in 1953, because of OIL (surprise), basically commenced the destabilisation of the region. Bush and Blair's illegal invasion of Iraq and the clumsy interference in Afghanistan by, once again, you guessed it, America and Britain was perhaps the last straw.

And now the West is suffering. Big surprise!

This reality is clearly exacerbated by Schengen and the relative ease with which brainwashed Jihadists, can easily move between European landlocked states and worse, smuggle in weapons and explosives.

The West's disingenuous attitude to asylum seekers and immigrants, ostensibly fleeing from civil wars and immense social and economic upheaval and dislocation and the lack of proper intelligence and robust policing place the cherry on top of the cake.

The matter of North Africans in France and their alleged causes for civil disorder are a whole different matter and a different topic.

Poor immigrants from all over Europe flooded into America during the mid-1800s to the early 1900s. never did they or have they taken up arms to protest their, very justifiable cause for serious protest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...