This drawing, published today by Australian cartoonist David Pope, was reproduced by Mathieu Sol in a comment on the post below, but deserves to be above the fold. Here it is:
If they determine the killers were Muslim extremists, let us then hear the “moderate” Muslims throughout the world decry this brutality. And Ben Affleck: are these murders the fault of Western colonialism, or religious extremism per se?
Once again, Islamic extremists have left us lost for words and I’m struggling to stay rational and dignified in light of this terrible event. It feels like a watershed moment. I HOPE it’s a watershed moment and I hope that the response is measured, dignified, non violent yet effective.
I agree. Perhaps this event will be like the massacre of school children at a school in Pakistan. The Pakistanis seem to have had enough. Perhaps the West will finally see where the problem lies and begin to deal seriously with it.
There does seem to be a lot of solidarity that Wasmt there in the past.
The moderate Muslims may very well be decrying the brutality — but getting little press. Or so I’ve read.
There’s been several quotes from Muslim organizations condemning it on Danish tv.
But I can’t help wondering how the reaction would have been in some Muslim countries if masked gunmen shouting “Jesus has been avenged!” did the same. 🙂
You seem to be saying it is the fault of the press that we do not hear outrage from the moderate members of Islam. OK. I’ll survey my local newspapers and TV/radio stations to see if there is organized censorship? I doubt there is, but I will investigate.
There is a Mosque in my neighborhood. I drive by it every day. There has never been any indication that memberrs of this Mosque abhor the violence practiced in the name of Islam. They very well may, but they have not communicated this sentiment to their neighbors. They probably could have done any number of things, but they have chosen to do nothing.
What do you think your local mosque could have/should have done which you would notice when driving by? Hang banners? Drape the windows with crepe? Have someone stand on the corner wearing signs and waving at cars?
A lot of people have linked to expressions of outrage and condemnation coming from prominent Islamic leaders. I don’t know where you live, but I’m going to guess that the individual Muslims who attend the mosque can be assumed to be against that sort of violence and pretty damned outraged — even if they find the cartoons themselves distasteful.
In the age of social media, you don’t need to hang a banner. At the very least, you can consistently decry the extremism that is not just happening in Western countries but even within the Middle East for example. And I am not referring to the celebs who do decry such incidents.
Keep in mind that a vast majority of such mosques across the Muslim regions are funded by the Wahhabi loving Saudis who in turn are the buddies of the US. And therefore, it would be great to see the US show some spine vis-a-vis their best buddies in the Middle East.
Lest I digress, yes it would be great to hear mosques and their leaders consistently denounce the extremism in their ranks. Actually scratch that. Let them first talk about women’s rights instead and then we will get to more touch topics such as tolerating criticism of the prophet.
I’ve seen moderate muslims all over the place already decrying the brutality… carried by Zionists Jews of course. Cause you know
ITS FALSE FLAG OPERATION BY MOSSAD FROM ISRAHELL TO BLAME PEACEFUL MUSLIMS! DONT BE A SHEEPLE! ISLAM IS PEACE!!111
Do you have a source for that or are you just trolling?
Source for what… these conspiracy theories or claims by muslims espousing them? Either way you can find plenty of this bullshit online and especially on youtube comment section.
After searching several mainstream news websites I have been unable to find a single cartoon from Charlie. Even in those so called informative articles about why this happened and the history of Charlie Hebdo.
What does that say about commentaries along the lines of “now is the time to uphold freedoms and not give in to fear” that is on the Guardian web site.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-french-newspaper-shooting_n_6429552.html?utm_hp_ref=media
They don’t give many translations. The first one, “Mohammed overrun by integrests”, has Mohammed weeping and saying, “It’s hard being loved by assholes.”
Good on Huffpo!
That’s a thought I’ve never had before.
Maybe not on mainstream sites, but here is one that has posted several Charlie Hedbo cartoons.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-collection-of-charlie-hedbo.html#.VK1qmyvF98F
Yes, as Sam Harris has attempted to point out many times and much better than I can:
How many terrorist and suicide bomber do we experience from other religions on the planet?
John Kerry just went on TV to make a nice statement about the attack in France. Never was the word religion, or Islam or Muslim even mentioned. These mysterious terrorist?
Clausewitz said that you must know your enemy before you can defeat him.
Case in point, there was no violence about this cover, which I’m sure offended many Christians.
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/544911949192916992/ZlPfYfOY.jpeg
The murders are the fault of insane cowards. Is it really the fault of Islam that everything about it is for the glorification of insane cowardice?
b&
How many murders have been committed by insane cowards who were Xian fundamentalists or purists? (Think holocaust). How many Hindus in the 2001 Gujarat riots? How many Jews in Palestine today? I would need better statistics to determine if the number of cowardly murders committed by fundamentalist of one religion has been greater than thos of another. And now I will drop this subject before it heats up too much.
Where did I write that Islam has a monopoly on insane cowardice?
But Islam makes no pretenses about it. The very name means submission — to an imaginary tyrant. The very first principle of Islam is that one must cower before the monster under the bed.
And, yes, there are many other examples all throughout history and into modernity.
But it was the Islamic insane cowards who just yesterday gunned down an office full of artists armed with nothing but pen and paper. Not any of those others. When those others cowardly act on their insanities, we’ll call them on it, too. But today it’s Islam’s turn.
b&
You’d better John – you’re in the heart of New Atheist/Evolutionary Psychology/Islamaphobia country right here and they are convinced that Islam has some special mojo that makes it more powerfully violent than all the other religions in the world in spite of the grand Christian tradition and the malignant god of the Old Testament.
And FYI – any moderate Muslim who is NOT on the public record as against terrorism is automatically assumed by this crowd to be in favor of it. They don’t trust those Mooslims nohow.
Coyne is rapidly turning into a crazy old right-wing coot, following in the steps of Richard Dawkins.
M’yes, spot on. We never criticize Christianity or Christian history or Christian atrocities. 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8
And we’re definitely big on Evo Psych here. Especially Jerry.
Btw, you should read Da Roolz.
I’m sensing a disturbance in the force.
Must be Yoda goofing around again.
Those were a lot of generalizations. Can you back them up with citations?
Has anyone never denounced Christianity on this site? Further, have Christians threatened this Feench newspaper for their offensive Christian imagery? There are a lot. Go look at the image used on Charlie Hebdo’s Twitter feed. I’ll wait.
The difference is Christianity took 300 years to stop its violent behaviour. We don’t have the time to wait that long for Islam to do the same thing. We need to support Mulims in changing Islam from within but we are not going to stop criticizing bad ideas no matter what religion is advocating them and no matter how many times our fellow lefties try to silence us with accusations of “islamophobia”.
“who were Xian fundamentalists or purists? (Think holocaust)”
Nobody is saying that individual moslims are particulair bad or that there are no other bad ideologies.
“Are convinced that Islam has some special mojo that makes it more powerfully violent”
Islam has indeed some special properties, not found in other ideologies. I think Michael Nugent makes a good case for exactly that:
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/10/12/is-islam-a-religion-of-peace-it-is-an-integrated-ideology-of-social-governance-imposed-by-force/
This was an attack by Islamists against a left-wing satirical magazine but by all means stick to your fantasy of a that this is somehow a right-wing war against Muslims.
What a refreshing comment. Normally, Jerry has to stick to moderating comments from Christians saying atheists are too cowardly to call out Islam. Glad we could straigthen that out and demonstrate that we’re basically pals with the Westboro Baptist folks.
Nancy,
Thanks not only for your incivility, but your ageism and the slur on Dawkins, as well as the completely ridiculous suggestion that I’m right wing. Your naivete about the dangers of various religions would be touching were it not bull-goose ignorant Rather than return the insults about my character and age, I suggest that your comments belong at Pharyngula rather than here. You’ll be welcome there, and at any rate you won’t be posting here again.
Mr. Boubakeur, rector of the great mosque of Paris : “We condemn this horrible crime in the name of all the Muslims”
It’s not like notorious Muslims in France are not condemning this act…
I look forward to seeing throngs of Muslims demonstrating against this attack in the streets in of Cairo, Lahore, and other cities of “the Muslim World”. (And in London, for that matter.)
I’m sure many moderate Muslims will decry the attack but equally there will be many rejoicing in the streets.
I can’t find it in my heart to judge them any worse than a western press outlet that condemns it but doesn’t actually show the CH cover (which would be pretty much all of them). Our press condemns the act but doesn’t show the offending cartoons. Muslim mainstreamers condemn the act but don’t make a public spectacle of it. Its pretty much the same in my book, and I’m sure many of them hold back for the same reason our media outlets hold back: a media leader must consider the potential risk to their employees, and a muslim must consider the potential risk to their family.
I’m not saying I agree with that decision, but I understand it and frankly won’t ladle too much excoriation on someone who has to balance the two. I have a three-year-old; I know putting him in danger to publish a cartoon (or make a public statement) would not be a decision I would make lightly.
And that is precisely why this kind of thing continues. People find excuses not to stand up against it with the same gusto as they’ll come out to demand censorship of cartoons.
It isn’t a position I’d be proud of holding.
Putting yourself at risk to defend free speech is one thing. The staff at CH did that. I fully support them and laud them for it. As for the other media outlets…putting your employees at risk to defend free speech without their consent is quite another thing. Can we at least agree that it should be the staff that makes that decision, not their boss (who probably isn’t even going to be in the building – and thus not sharing the risk – anyway)?
We can agree that as long as people are more afraid of terrorists than they are of loss of freedom of expression then terrorism will continue.
Is it okay for me to put up a mohammed picture and put “care of GBJames, [your real name and address]” at the bottom of it? If that is my defense of free speech, I don’t think many people would think much of me for doing it. They would rightly point out that whatever positive message the picture sends, my putting the risk off on you is another form of cowardice. So, too, I think, ordering your employees to put one up when you are not sharing in their risk.
I’ve already done essentially that. Have at it.
Publisher policies are under the control of publishers. I think it would be fine for them to discuss this with their employees. But IMO the policy should be to publish even if employees object. I think people in the business of journalism should stand up for freedom of expression. The policy of being polite to religious extremists only leads to more terrorism.
If you actually care about the employees of publishing companies, the last thing to do is cave to the demands of religious terrorists.
Every newspaper and magazine in the country should put “Charlie Hebdo” on its masthead after this.
And don’t worry, Ben, there are plenty of Christian terrorists too.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/04/3599271/austin-shooter-christian-extremism/
🐾
Love the new gravatar!
b&
From Facebook. Also now my profile pic on FB and Twitter. (And Diane’s on FB!)
/@
It’s also mine in Twitter and GBJames’s on FB as well.
And it was a white man in his 40s who left a firebomb at a NAACP office yesterday. Until all white men in their 40s repudiate this violence, I say none should be trusted.
If these things were being done in the name of Catholicism, a heirarchical religion with one boss, it would make sense to say other coreligionists had a moral responsibility to repudiate the violence.
Since Islam is structured differently, and most Muslims are Muslim because they were born in a Muslim country, calling for them to refute the violence (and implying that all Muslims are suspect if they don’t) is a little bit like picking any other inherited trait (they’re men, they’re from a country, whatever).
There’s definitely SOMETHING going on with the intersection of Islam and culture in the terrorism hot spots, but I suspect that if another religion were dominant in those countries (Afghanistan, Syra, Iraq, Pakistan, and Nigeria had something like 85% of terrorism deaths last year) there’d be the same problems.
I’m sorry but I don’t understand…
So if we exchanged Methodist for all the Islam in Afghanistan, terrorism would be worse?
I suspect (and only suspect) that no matter what the dominant religion of those countries were, a violent fundamentalist version probably would’ve arisen. That is, while the particular religion does play a role, I don’t think it’s necessarily the root cause.
How would you define the root cause?
Good question. Can I put money on the response being something like “western imperialism”?
How much money are you willing to put on it? I could use a few EURs.
I had in mind factors like:
– The extent to which a place has a tradition to submission to authority (either in government or society)
– How culturally and ethnically homogeneous a place is
– The extent to which violence is generally, historically prevalent in a society
– How stagnant / conservative a culture is vs. how much change it’s undergoing
“– The extent to which a place has a tradition to submission to authority (either in government or society)”
You mean religious ideology and laws?
“– How culturally and ethnically homogeneous a place is”
As in diversity increases violence?
“– The extent to which violence is generally, historically prevalent in a society”
Which society? France?
“– How stagnant / conservative a culture is vs. how much change it’s undergoing”
So the problem lies in a conservative culture in France against modernity?
I’m not trying to be snooty, but I honestly don’t see how any of this brings us closer to the root cause for this attack, and I have no idea what societies you are referring to.
You can go ahead and say human nature or the like, but that wouldn’t pin down anything.
If the white man in his 40’s left the firebomb at the NAACP in defense white racism, then yes, I’d be rather concerned with what the groups of white racists around the country are saying about it. I’d be especially concerned if racist groups in the US were not generally marginalized and considered shifty, but welcomed with open arms as a valuable asset to the community. Do they repudiate this violence?
Muslims may not be as organized into a single system as Catholics are, but they are hardly practicing Sheilaism. They are structured around a particular text which seems to be pretty Old Testament specific, authoritarian, and hierarchal. It’s also supposed to be considered Perfect. Unless you’re arguing that Islam IS an inherited trait and not a religion, the comparison isn’t apt. Religion is more like politics: yes, you heavily imbibe from your environment and culture but the goal is supposed to be to make sense on a universal level. Many Nazis weren’t violent and concentrated on the more benign philosophical and patriotic aspects of the system, often doing good through the party. That doesn’t mean we can’t condemn fascism as a whole, or demand consistency from its members when the expected hits the fan.
Well, right now the terrorism hot spot seems to be France.
But the OP wasn’t referring to the muslim analog of white racist groups, it said “let us then hear the “moderate” Muslims throughout the world decry this brutality.” So I think dvandivare has a good point. I’m a white man in that age range. I condemn the NAACP bombing. But if you think I owe the broader public some act like going out in the street and protesting it, then I gotta say you’re wrong. If you think I owe it to the NAACP or to you to ensure people thousands of miles away from me know that I condemn it, you’re wrong there too. I don’t. And neither does a muslim living in Cairo owe it to us to perform some public repudiation of the act that we can see. Obviously the morally right thing to do is to condemn it in strong and clear terms. But I don’t think its morally obligatory that I go out and protest in the street in front of a camera before my condemnation is considered legitimate.
My analogy was to that of a violent extremist and the groups which endorse the cause he kills for. There are moderate, non-violent members of white supremacist groups. I’d hope and expect them to officially condemn terrorist acts with arguments that we need to work within the system, change the laws, live bigotry in our families, etc.
I’m not arguing that all individual Muslims everywhere have a personal responsibility to go out into the street and protest. But I do think Muslim organizations should make public denouncements — and it looks like they’re doing so. That’s good.
It is good when they do it and that they are doing it.
I believe what I’m saying is: if a condemnation falls in a Cairo forest, and no westerner hears it, it still makes a sound. 🙂
In other words, you drew a different analogy than I made.
Yes, because it didn’t apply.
I’m not sure if that was criticism of your point, or support. A racist who kills for racist reasons isn’t representing all white men, but white supremacist ideology. He’s committing violence for a cause. It’s the groups which are defined by that cause which need to publicly denounce his methods.
These terrorists were motivated by an ideological cause, the sacred truth of Islam and an absolute requirement for respect. It was an honor killing.
“But if you think I owe the broader public some act like going out in the street and protesting it, then I gotta say you’re wrong.”
Let’s put it this way. Effing cartoons being published brings the mobs into the streets, burning embassies, etc. in reaction.
A mass-murder of 8 innocent, unarmed people (+ 2 innocent armed cops) in a peaceful city is less worthy of a public statement (hey, even holding a “Je Suis Charlie” demonstration! No violence required!) than an effing cartoon?
It tells you very clearly what their priorities are. And they aren’t free speech, peace, and democracy, in case you are wondering.
So now in addition to the mainstream muslim being responsible for ensuring the western world hears their support for CH (and opposition to the attackers), they are also responsible for ensuring the western world hears their objection any time their neighbors takes to the street about something? Gosh, they have a lot of responsibilities to us!
You don’t think you’re being a tad self-centered in demanding other peole protest lout enough to be heard by you?
How about a single fatwah against these people?
Here’s some progress anyway, and I applaud these people:
This is what needs to be universal.
Does the same standard apply to us? If Americans do not universally condemn torture, does that mean that JBillie supports it? If your condemnation is not heard by JBillimed in Cairo, does that mean you support torture?
I submit to you that that’s a ridiculous standard to hold someone to. Us…or them.
I’m saying universal by Muslim public leaders and nations. I am glad some leaders are condemning the killers. Well done; and what else would be expected? Should anything less be expected? These people are doing their deeds in the name of Islam. Seems to me it’s incumbent upon all Muslim leaders to condemn these killers and their attribution.
And, as I’ve stated a couple of times in these comment streams: A single fatwah against these killers would be more convincing.
Why are the imams in Frances not issuing fatwahs exhorting all French Muslims to aid the police in their hunt for the killers? Why is that? After all, cartoons published in remote countries rise to the level of seemingly needing a fatwah (death against the artists and publishers)
Observe the difference in world Muslim reaction to the murder of 12 innocent people in France (by, what seems obvious, are radical Islamists) versus the reaction to the publishing of cartoons. What does this tell you about the generality of Muslims around the world?
Here’s what is says (millions of Muslims around the world are still stuck in Medieval thinking):
Pew polling results
In Europe
According to BBC:
I question the last sentence and wonder how the Arab League can state such a thing since they don’t speak for all of Islam, but I was actually surprised that they would say anything.
Nobody speaks for all of Islam.
Doesn’t mean they can’t denounce it.
Nor does it mean they have a moral responsibility to do so, which is my point.
And statements like “If they determine the killers were Muslim extremists, let us then hear the “moderate” Muslims throughout the world decry this brutality” surely imply that they do have that obligation.
He posted it tomorrow, actually lol
That is a superb cartoon.
“The pen is mightier than the sword.” May that saying come true. It’d have to be a worldwide effort and include legal proceedings.
Reblogged this on Rainbowman56's Blog.
So apparently, according to the commentariat around here, condemnation by the rector of the great mosque of the city where the attacks happened is not valid. Nor is condemnation by Tariq Ramadan, nor by the Arab League and Al-Azhar University, nor by many individual Muslims (take a look at twitter).
Your idea of “condemnation” is then, if I correctly understand, nothing less but mass protests in the middle of “The Muslim World”? When was the last time a mass protest happened in Rome to condemn the Troubles in Belfast?
No, I think this condemnation by Muslim leaders is both valid and very welcome. It’s absence would be concerning. Doubling down would be very concerning.
“The commentariat around here” is a large brush. Be careful you don’t make the same mistake you accuse us of.
You are of course right, my apologies. I should not have generalized. I referred to specific comments like those by GBJames and Genghis.
When Muslims pour out into the streets of Cairo, Beirut, Teheran, Gaza, Jakarta, Karachi (as they do when someone publishes an effing cartoon) then I’ll figure that most Muslims are opposed to such acts.
When the Imams start issuing fatwahs against the killers, then I’ll take their opposition seriously.
Words are cheap.
Words are not cheap if/when they get you murdered.
I think this is precisely the point. I am not interested in how Catholics, Buddhists or anyone else reacts to events. They are not the subject of the discussion. We should compare the reactions of Muslims in this situation with their reaction when they feel slighted. Thousands of “moderates” march in protest over a cartoon. They call for the death of those who offend them. Imams call for an end to islamophobia. But when people commit murder in the name of their religion the moderates remain silent.
If a group is moved to protest over a cartoon but not over murder then it’s reasonable to conclude that they are more offended by cartoons than murder.
Which specific comment by me? The one about waiting to see large scale street demonstrations in support of Charlie and demanding death to those who committed this atrocity?
I guess I missed those reports. Perhaps you’ll supply links.
The killers were, in all likelihood, Muslim extremists, but it’s important to point out they were speaking perfect French, with no foreign accents at all.
They undoubtedly grew up in France. The dormitory cities (called “banlieus” by the american press) are full of out-of-work and unhappy youth (and older). Rife for recruitement.
Sorry, “banlieus”. 😉
“Banlieues”. Just can’t get that “e” in there. Sorry.
Were they? I saw one article saying their French was poor.
Yes.
They were born in Paris, France.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30726321
I have forwarded this to my mailing lists, such as they are with the comment: this cartoon says it all. It deserves to go viral
Which one?
There’s only one in the OP.
“We have avenged the prophet!”
“Allah u akbar!”
Yeah, nothing to do with religion whatsoever (listening Mr. Aslan?)
Reblogged this on hirn einschalten.
Reblogged this on Joe's Notepad.
I continue to like Sam Harris’s thought experiment that gives the lie to the nonsense about “Islamophobia”:
For several years, a satirical show about Mormonism: The Book of Mormon, has run in theaters in New York City. (Or imagine the “Piss Christ” or many other satirical works that offend other religions.)
Imagine a similar satirical show called, The Koran, a Satire. And then imagine what would happen, like night following day.
This pretty much tells you all you need to know.
Shared on fa*****k
I am heartened by the public condemnations by some world Muslim leaders. Good on them.
However, I think it’s quite appropriate to paraphrase Anatole France:
A single fatwah against the killers would be much more convincing.
Yes, that much is heartening.
Have any of them indicated support of the right to publish cartoons of Mohammad? I would not expect so, although I’d love to be proved wrong.
Yes, many muslims have. See for example here for leaders doing it and here for individuals doing it (specifically, see Ilyad, Sabbyah, and Omid’s tw**ts for defenses of freedom in addition to simple condemnations of violence).
So there you go, you’re happily proven wrong.
Sadly, eric, this link is really nothing but the usual long list of tweets condemning violence. If there is support for the right to offend religious sentiment in there, I missed it.
The other link, with statements from three Muslim organizations in the US (only), is better and I’m happy to acknowledge their stated support for freedom of speech.
I look forward to the day when such statements are seen coming from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic nations of the world. I don’t, however, expect to see that day in my lifetime. Although, again, I’d be happy to be proved wrong.
There is more hope with the Muslim Canadian Congress which includes a bunch of Muslims who denounce Islam. Some identify as secular Muslims (if you can believe it – they seem to exist).
They are going to protest today outside a Toronto Mosque.
Check out their Web site. They talk about gay rights!! Check out their beliefs here!
That is excellent news.
Tarek Fatah founded the organization. I think Canada is very lucky to have him. He’s smart and a moderate muslim and not afraid to call bullshit. He and I would surely disagree on theology but we’d agree on a lot of other stuff.
It’s rather easy for these Muslim spokesmen to decry the individual act.
But the two fine fellows who committed this tragedy did not arise in a vacuum. They almost certainly belong to a mosque where their sort of behavior is not just tolerated, but is venerated and encouraged.
The fact is that Islam is highly radicalized compared to other religions, and there are a lot of radical Islamic leaders who are ultimately responsible for these atrocities, but who are never brought to account for their actions. Why?
Because the elephant in the room is that the moderate and liberal Muslims are afraid to police their own religion. Moderate Muslims need to infiltrate these radicals and expose them. Moderate Muslims have to demand excommunication of the radicals. But they won’t. Because the radical component has the tacit approval of a substantial minority to, in some places, an outright majority of the community.
Far safer to make cookie-cutter public statements than to actually clean house. Doing that will get you killed.
And that is the difference between Islam and any other religion you may want to use for comparison.
Freedom of thought and expression have been attacked by Christians and Muslims for centuries. In Christianity, the concept of “heresy” arose within the first several hundred years of the growth of Christianity, dogma was developed and solidified shortly thereafter,excommunication and deaths followed not far behind. The rigidity of Catholicism has flourished for many centuries.Other WEIT writers have commented on the persecutions, tortures, burnings and crusades in which huge numbers died. From the 1500s until about 1966, the Catholic church proscribed books, and there are still about 144 books on this list.
The same “freedom of thought and expression” had a similar history for Muslims. There was a period of time after the death of Muhammed that rational, intelligent readings of the Koran and Hadith were valued and flourished. See “Ijtihad” in Wikipedia or on the internet.) After about the 900s, this was restricted to a select group of interpretters
which continues.
With the proliferation of religions, credos,dogma,heresy,persecution and murders
are quick to develop and are hard to stop.
I’m sick and tired of ‘moderate’ muslims explaining why the latest massacre isn’t related to islam. Perhaps if muslims spent more time thinking about their sorry religion and less time explaining why I have to censor myself, they’d be able to make progress.
Je suis Charlie.
Reblogged this on Shashank Patel.
The response of a senior muslim cleric in Ireland to this attack was to warn Irish newspapers not to reproduce the cartoons in their publications, or they would pursue them legally. They wont kill, but they will sue. The real tragedy in this?
The fact that the law would be on the side of the cleric! Irish blasphemy laws have gone from being embarassing to being a total f*#king disgrace. Ashamed to be Irish today.
In the circumstances, a threat of a lawsuit could be seen as an improvement on the usual practice.
And I’m not being sarcastic. Unfortunately.
Here are just a few of the great many: http://www.alternet.org/media/45-examples-muslim-outrage-about-charlie-hebdo-attack-fox-news-missed