Anarchist newspaper publishes cartoons of Muhammad in aftermath of "Innocence"

[MustCrushCapitalism]

(Reuters) - The French government has called for restraint after learning that a satirical weekly plans to publish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday just as an anti-Islam video has ignited Muslim protests around the globe.
The Paris offices of the paper, Charlie Hebdo, were firebombed last November after it published a mocking caricature of Mohammad, and in 2005 Danish cartoons of the Prophet sparked a wave of protests across the Muslim world in which at least 50 people were killed.
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, asked about the publication, said any provocation now could only be condemned.
Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault issued a statement saying: "In the current climate, the prime minister wishes to stress his disapproval of all excess and calls on everyone to behave responsibly."
France (http://www.reuters.com/places/france) is home to Europe's largest Muslim population. Calls are already circulating on social networks and the Internet for protests on Saturday over an anti-Islam film that was made with private funds in the United States and posted on the Internet.
Last Sunday police arrested about 150 people who sought to take part in an unapproved protest near the U.S. Embassy in Paris.
In the torrent of violence blamed on the film, U.S. and other Western embassies have been attacked in cities in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed last week in an attack in Benghazi, and Afghan militants killed 12 people in a suicide attack on Tuesday that they said was in retaliation for the film.
CHARLIE HEBDO REFUSES TO BOW
Charlie Hebdo, renowned for its irreverent treatment of the political establishment and public figures, argued that it had the right to uphold that tradition.
"We do caricatures of everyone, and above all every week, and when we do it with the Prophet, it's called provocation," the paper's editor, Stephane Charbonnier, told the news channel i>TELE.
He said that if Charlie Hebdo stopped printing satirical work because of pressure or fear of offence, it would be reduced to selling 16 blank pages every week.
Cartoons seen by Reuters that were due to be published on the inside pages of the paper included a series of images, including nude caricatures, poking fun at Mohammad.
Many Muslims object to any representation of Allah or Mohammad or to irreverent treatment of the Koran.
The main body representing Muslims in France, the French Muslim Council (CFCM), accused Charlie Hebdo of firing up anti-Muslim sentiment at a sensitive time.
"The CFCM is deeply attached to freedom of speech but considers that nothing can justify insult and inciting hatred," it said in a statement.
"The CFCM calls on the Muslims of France not to give in to such provocation and urges them to express their indignation calmly and in lawful manner."
Charlie Hebdo has got into hot water on similar issues more than once.
Former editor Philippe Val was pursued in French courts on charges of racial injury, and ultimately acquitted, after the paper reprinted the Danish cartoons of Mohammad
I'm interested to see what we all think now that a left-wing source is satirizing Islam, rather than the reactionaries behind "The Innocence of Muslims".

[#FF0000]

why are so many anarchists so dumb dude

[Zostrianos]

I wonder how many people will be murdered as a result of this :thumbdown:

[Geiseric]

This definitely isn't an opportunist move to sell more of their shitty paper.

Freedom of the press dude! Muslims are so backward and sensitive, I can't believe they freak out about a picture! I expect the editors of that paper to have the same logic as the 13 year old petit bourgeois kids at my old high school.

[Zealot]

Idiots. But at least they'll have their 15 minutes of fame

[Ostrinski]

Makes the left look like a bunch of tools.

The left are a bunch of tools, but no need to treat it like a formality.

[Drosophila]

Freedom of the press dude! Muslims are so backward and sensitive, I can't believe they freak out about a picture! I expect the editors of that paper to have the same logic as the 13 year old petit bourgeois kids at my old high school.

Are you being serious?

[Grenzer]

Freedom of the press dude! Muslims are so backward and sensitive, I can't believe they freak out about a picture!.

Don't be such a fucking chauvinist. We need to look at this from a Marxist viewpoint.

The Arab world is under siege politically, culturally , economically, and in some places militarily by the international bourgeoisie even more so than in other parts of the world. In light of this, it should come as no surprise that they choose to take solace in religion. I think too many people forget the part that comes before the whole "opium of the people thing".


Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.

[Robocommie]

Guys, I think Broody was speaking in character as the anarchists in question.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Personally, I think major publications attacking a religion is much worse than some idiots making a shitty youtube video, insofar as disparagement of a religious community can lead to exploitation of or violence towards that community.

[Ostrinski]

Don't be silly guys this is a great strategy of appealing to the Islamic community!

[Geiseric]

Guys! I was being sarcastic. I completely condemn anybody whose ignorant enough to insult millions of people who are fucked regularly by mercenary armies, sent by the government that rules the country i'm from.

[MarxSchmarx]

Although on some level I sympathize with their contempt for sacred cows, the main critique of leftists should be how this is a quite reactionary act. Their mockery, aimed at working people who happen to be Muslim, and not so much at the like of the Saudi Wahabi hierarchy, perpetuates the right-wing narrative of "those superstitious musselmans who can't function in a secular, modern capitalist world". Far from speaking any sort of truth to power, it is an endorsement of a particular form of intolerance, unaccepting of pluralism and manifested in the Swiss minaret ban or the French ban on hijabs. That an ostensibly "anarchist" periodical should grovel like this to the talking points of the right tells you how "leftwing" the fools publishing that thing are.

[The Douche]

I'm not familiar with this paper, but mohammed is not my prophet, and, as such, is not sacred to me. Fuck Islam, it doesn't deserve any special exceptions.

[Geiseric]

You're kinda missing the point. If you put your faith into a single hope, and if you don't know any better since you have been investing all of your bad feelings into that single hope through your entire life, are uneducated, and other than your religeon you don't see a reason to live, and somebody shits on it by going against the core tenant of it, you would be pissed the fuck off.
In order to respect the poor people who don't know any better in the middle east and to make it so they don't go on a misguided jihad against white people who they see as their enemy, not their class enemy, but the only white people they've seen are capitalists and soldiers, it's imperative to make moronic petit bourgeois fuckheads stop aggrivating them.

[RebelDog]

In order to respect the poor people who don't know any better

One respects a person by patronising them?

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not familiar with this paper...

No, nor me.


... but mohammed is not my prophet...

Nor mine.


... and, as such, is not sacred to me...

I absolutely agree.


... Fuck Islam, it doesn't deserve any special exceptions.


Well, quite, so are you going to be protesting that they haven't published any cartoons mocking Jesus (after all they are publishing in a largely Christian, though officially secular, country)? Publishing these cartoons about a minority religion makes Islam an exception. Which you think it doesn't deserve.

[Geiseric]

Telling people not to offend sensitive people is hardly patronizing. It's called respect. These people don't know any differently, and have a very limited world view due to their life situation, which is based on survival. To them, Islam is what allows them to survive in the environment they were born in. It's not like anything anybody from the U.K. or U.S. can truly understand. However take the poorest, most catholic Mexican person and tell them that their religion is a lie, and see what happens. Fanaticism is hardly unique to middle eastern people. That quality is simply drawn out more by the bourgeois press, and you are helping the bourgeoisie wage the wars if you repeat these disasters, as a way of dehumanizing people in the eyes of people who aren't as desperately religious, whom can't understand the psyche of say a palestinian or an Iraqui who have to live through the daily hell called life.

[Crux]

It says they re-printed the danish caricatures as well, who was incidentally racist as fuck, completely on par with Der Ewige Jude. So yeah, fuck those guys.

The Douche: So how would you feel about anti-latino racism covered up in anti-catholic clothing? After all you're not a catholic either right? There's a bigger context here.

[Red Commissar]

I'm for freedom of expression and all, but this is just a cynical exploitation of current events to get attention. Honestly, don't they have anything else better to do? Like anarchy?

Is 10 minutes fame and some easy euro worth all this? Hopefully they'll put that towards something constructive, but something tells me they won't.

[Sir Comradical]

Are they funny though? Yeah sure we should condemn all this shit because it's intended to demonise muslims blah blah. But blasphemy is funny.

[The Douche]

My eariler post is not a particularly accurate expression of my ideas. I was a bit inebriated at the time.

I think anti-islamism is often a thin veil which anti-arab racists hide behind. But I still don't think that Islam, or its prophet are above satire.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I've run out of patience for pretty much everyone involved in this idiocy. None of the sane members of my family or the community i grew up in gets riled by this kind of stuff, however being needlessly antagonistic in this fashion leads to results that are nothing if not predictable at this point. I wish civilization would just get on with it and collapse already. I'm starting to see this kind of thing as a manifestation of extreme boredom leading to a kind of deathwish.

[Tim Cornelis]

How dare anyone condemn anyone for criticising any religion. It is unbelievable that you all would rather defend the ultra-reactionary scum revolting over a shitty youtube video than defend those who challenge these people through satire. It's pathetic and the world turned upside down.


I'm interested to see what we all think now that a left-wing source is satirizing Islam, rather than the reactionaries behind "The Innocence of Muslims".

I haven't seen 'Innocence of Muslims' but how is criticising Islam reactionary? As I understand, the maker of the film is Arab himself so no excuses about it being "racist."

Another question is, why would satirising Islam warrant any apology against anyone whatsoever? I should not have to apologise against anyone if I wish to satirise or criticise any religion.


I wonder how many people will be murdered as a result of this :thumbdown:

So rather than condemn the ultra-reactionary killers you criticise the cartoonists? Everyone is responsible for his own behaviour, this paper will not be responsible for the killing of anyone in the same way that flat-builders are not responsible for suicide jumpers.


This definitely isn't an opportunist move to sell more of their shitty paper.

I don't see why this would be the case indeed. I fully applaud anyone who risks his life criticising any religion. This assessment is unsubstantiated. The last time their building was bombed, and the Danish maker of an anti-Islam cartoon has been targeted many times. To risk your own life for opportunism does not seem logical at all. It therefore seems more likely this was a matter of principle, and rightly indeed.


Freedom of the press dude! Muslims are so backward and sensitive, I can't believe they freak out about a picture!

Exactly right actually.


Makes the left look like a bunch of tools.

Conversely, condemning people for satirising or criticising religion when this religion is Islam makes the left look like politically correct cowards.


Don't be silly guys this is a great strategy of appealing to the Islamic community!

Now this is an example of opportunism: not voicing your opinion because it may alienate some.


Guys! I was being sarcastic. I completely condemn anybody whose ignorant enough to insult millions of people who are fucked regularly by mercenary armies, sent by the government that rules the country i'm from.

So you're condemning criticising religion because "it hurts people's feelings" and some unrelated geopolitics. How is the use of military force by the US in Arab countries and Afghanistan in any way related to criticising of Islam? It's a cheap attempt at an appeal to emotion.

Christians in Africa are frequent targets of armies, by the same token we are not allowed to criticise or satirise Jesus.


Idiots. But at least they'll have their 15 minutes of fame

What makes them idiots? That they don't coward away from criticising a religion for the fear of retaliation or being accused of "racist" by such cowards?


Although on some level I sympathize with their contempt for sacred cows, the main critique of leftists should be how this is a quite reactionary act.

How is satirising religion reactionary?


Their mockery, aimed at working people who happen to be Muslim,

Oh shut up. How are these images even aimed at workers? Explain that please. It's exactly the other way around. These images are aimed at reactionary muslims, many of whom happen to be workers.


and not so much at the like of the Saudi Wahabi hierarchy, perpetuates the right-wing narrative of "those superstitious musselmans who can't function in a secular, modern capitalist world".

That's merely an association fallacy. I'm not allowed to criticise Islam because right-wingers abuse it to promote anti-migration policies.


Far from speaking any sort of truth to power, it is an endorsement of a particular form of intolerance, unaccepting of pluralism and manifested in the Swiss minaret ban or the French ban on hijabs.

What?


That an ostensibly "anarchist" periodical should grovel like this to the talking points of the right tells you how "leftwing" the fools publishing that thing are.

We all know how fond anarchism is of religion.


You're kinda missing the point. If you put your faith into a single hope, and if you don't know any better since you have been investing all of your bad feelings into that single hope through your entire life, are uneducated, and other than your religeon you don't see a reason to live, and somebody shits on it by going against the core tenant of it, you would be pissed the fuck off.

What a shit excuse. This is indeed patrionising and 'orientalist'. We should put up with ultra-reactionaries because "they are poor and stupid and are too dumb to understand anything else."


Telling people not to offend sensitive people is hardly patronizing. It's called respect.

It's disrespectful to call poor people ignorant because they are poor. And it is indeed patrionising to use being poor as excuse for being ignorant and reactionary and portraying the Muslim population as having nothing.


These people don't know any differently, and have a very limited world view due to their life situation, which is based on survival. To them, Islam is what allows them to survive in the environment they were born in.

How can you not spot the obvious patrionising in this post? Just read it.


However take the poorest, most catholic Mexican person and tell them that their religion is a lie, and see what happens. Fanaticism is hardly unique to middle eastern people.

No one is arguing it is.


That quality is simply drawn out more by the bourgeois press, and you are helping the bourgeoisie wage the wars if you repeat these disasters, as a way of dehumanizing people in the eyes of people who aren't as desperately religious, whom can't understand the psyche of say a palestinian or an Iraqui who have to live through the daily hell called life.

Oh look, another association fallacy.


Well, quite, so are you going to be protesting that they haven't published any cartoons mocking Jesus (after all they are publishing in a largely Christian, though officially secular, country)? Publishing these cartoons about a minority religion makes Islam an exception. Which you think it doesn't deserve.

No one should have to apologise or put disclaimers anywhere for criticising religion. But I saw a news report which said they satirised all religions. Also this:


Charlie Hebdo has been lampooning all sorts of people for more than 20 years; name someone famous or iconic and chances are they’ve been skewered — the Pope, Jesus Christ, politicians of all stripes, and now, once again, Muhammad.

http://www.theworld.org/2012/09/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-muhammad/

How many protests have there been over anti-Christian, anti-Hinduist, anti-Buddhist, anti-Judaist cartoons such as this:

(Not Safe For Work)

http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/cartoonvantheonion.jpg


It says they re-printed the danish caricatures as well, who was incidentally racist as fuck, completely on par with Der Ewige Jude. So yeah, fuck those guys.

Which of the following pictures is racist, and of those pictures which have been re-printed by this French newspaper?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef0168eafaf0b9970c-400wi


I'm for freedom of expression and all, but this is just a cynical exploitation of current events to get attention. Honestly, don't they have anything else better to do? Like anarchy?

Attention for a good cause. Anyone should have the right to criticise any religion.


Is 10 minutes fame and some easy euro worth all this? Hopefully they'll put that towards something constructive, but something tells me they won't.

Again such a pathetic unsubstantiated claim. They risk their lives, you really think they are in it for the money?

[Geiseric]

If an organization I was involved in real life was up to this kind of opportunist, attention grabbing bullshit I would leave it as soon as it came to light.

Supporting this means supporting the war, because the intention of this isn't "Free speech bro," it's to intentionally demonize a culture that nobody in the U.S. and apparently this forum knows LITERALLY anything about.

It isn't patronizing to call an ignorant person ignorant. However they don't have a choice in the matter as to what their religion is. It is ingrained in their minds that Islam is above everything, including their own personal life. Insulting Islam means insulting everybody who practices it, in their minds.

This isn't criticizing religeon. That can be done in a multitude of ways. This is intentional aggrivation for the purpose of aggrivation, and anybody who supports it should be banned, seeing as they de facto are supporting the imperialist war effort by allowing people to dehumanize an entire culture.

How many times has this happened before the U.S. invaded Iraq? I mean don't you guys see a pattern, that baiting crowds of people to do violence serves the imperialists?

[Tim Cornelis]

Bullshit

I'm not even going to dignify this bullocks with a response. You are far beyond ridiculous.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It isn't patronizing to call an ignorant person ignorant. However they don't have a choice in the matter as to what their religion is. It is ingrained in their minds that Islam is above everything, including their own personal life. Insulting Islam means insulting everybody who practices it, in their minds.

Lol this is some patronizing bullshit. Muslims are as lazy in their religion as anyone else both in the west and elsewhere. It is forbidden to depict all prophets, not just Muhammad. This includes Jesus, Moses, Adam, etc. Why are there no demonstrations against depictions of them in Western media? You dont know as much about Islam or Muslims as you think you do, stop posting this ignorant shit.

Edit: Muslims as a group, obviously some take it very seriously as some do in all religions.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I haven't seen 'Innocence of Muslims' but how is criticising Islam reactionary? As I understand, the maker of the film is Arab himself so no excuses about it being "racist."

Another question is, why would satirising Islam warrant any apology against anyone whatsoever? I should not have to apologise against anyone if I wish to satirise or criticise any religion.

I wasn't claiming it was. But the producer of the film, I'm pretty sure, is a Geert Wilders-like right-wing neoconservative.

[Manic Impressive]

I wasn't claiming it was. But the producer of the film, I'm pretty sure, is a Geert Wilders-like right-wing neoconservative.
ok but what about when it's not. what about if it's an actual historical documentary about the early years of Islam. done in a very respectful way

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2012/09/the-history-of-islam-is-not-off-limits/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2012/09/channel-4-cancels-tom-hollands-history-of-islam-but-the-extremists-will-not-win/

[Igor]

Lol this is some patronizing bullshit. Muslims are as lazy in their religion as anyone else both in the west and elsewhere. It is forbidden to depict all prophets, not just Muhammad. This includes Jesus, Moses, Adam, etc. Why are there no demonstrations against depictions of them in Western media? You dont know as much about Islam or Muslims as you think you do, stop posting this ignorant shit.

Edit: Muslims as a group, obviously some take it very seriously as some do in all religions.

i am forums posters ethics gradient i understand muslim problems and islam better than they do they're so lazy about understanding their world view

have you ever considered they might actually not be that pissed off about depiction of muhammed but the very islamophobic message you usually see in them? like the muhammed bomb one which has some pretty bloody obvious implications about the essentially violent nature of islam as a religion. Political cartoons usually have some kind of messages, you know? In these cartoons, it's that islam is a violent or repressive religion, things like terrorist attacks are something that are connected to islam and all muslims. That's the point, not the point that their religion bans depicting Muhammed. The fact that people go "haha fuck islam imma draw mohammed muslims are so nuts" pisses people off, not the fact that Mohammed is being drawn ffs.

[Tim Cornelis]

I wasn't claiming it was. But the producer of the film, I'm pretty sure, is a Geert Wilders-like right-wing neoconservative.

In all probability he was a neoconservative (though Geert Wilders isn't, by the way). But should every time I criticise Islam, also criticise such right-wingers? No. Neoconservatives are wrong because of their politics, but there is nothing wrong in them making shitty youtube videos that are considered offensive by Islamists (they may be infactual and unnuanced, but there is nothing wrong in doing so). And I support them in doing that insofar it exposes reactionaries; credit where credit is due. The criticism stands by itself and warrants no apology to anyone. If want to depict Mohammed naked I am allowed to do so without needing to make excuses or apologising, nor does me depicting Muhammed naked lead to imperialist wars as Mr. Broody Guthrie would perhaps argue.

No one would care if someone did the same to Jesus or Vishnu or whatever, but now that Islam is a sensitive subject and criticism thereof has been monopolised by the right-wing it is all of a sudden "taboo."

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not even going to dignify this bullocks with a response. You are far beyond ridiculous.So in 1932, if people in France made a movie describing all the irrational beliefs of Judaism and the gender segregation of the religion and so on... yeah, that's simply criticizing religion with no context whatsoever and gives no ideological ground the NAZIs:rolleyes:.

I mean it's not like France oppresses north Africans, wants to ban the veil, and does this on the ground that their "religious fanaticism" is irreconcilable to French "secularism" on a nationalist basis.

[Tim Cornelis]

i am forums posters ethics gradient i understand muslim problems and islam better than they do they're so lazy about understanding their world view

have you ever considered they might actually not be that pissed off about depiction of muhammed but the very islamophobic message you usually see in them? like the muhammed bomb one which has some pretty bloody obvious implications about the essentially violent nature of islam as a religion.

But what is the point you're trying to make here?


Political cartoons usually have some kind of messages, you know? In these cartoons, it's that islam is a violent or repressive religion, things like terrorist attacks are something that are connected to islam

There is absolutely nothing wrong with assessing so. Islamic terrorism is an effluence of Islam.


and all muslims.

This is by no means the case in every cartoon critical of Islam. Portraying a muslim man (presumably Mohammed) with a bomb-turban does not necessarily reflect on all Muslims. That interpretation may be reserved only to the hypersensative.


That's the point, not the point that their religion bans depicting Muhammed. The fact that people go "haha fuck islam imma draw mohammed muslims are so nuts" pisses people off, not the fact that Mohammed is being drawn ffs.

Again, what's the point you're trying to make here? That we shouldn't make cartoons critical of Islam? That we shouldn't make cartoons critical of Muhammaed, Islamism, or Islamists? That Islamists are right to respond to the criticism that "Islamists are violent" by being violent?

Are you doing apologetics for Islamist violence? I truly don't understand what it is you're trying to convey here. Why shouldn't people be like "haha, fuck [any random religion?" Surely, we accept it when it is done against virtually all religions?

I bet that if Christians did the same in the US in response to an anti-Christian video you would all be ridiculing them.


So in 1932, if people in France made a movie describing all the irrational beliefs of Judaism and the gender segregation of the religion and so on... yeah, that's simply criticizing religion with no context whatsoever and gives no ideological ground the NAZIs:rolleyes:.

So we shouldn't criticise reactionaries when they are under attack by other reactionaries.

It indeed does not give ideological ground to Nazism, quite the contrary actually.


I mean it's not like France oppresses north Africans, wants to ban the veil, and does this on the ground that their "religious fanaticism" is irreconcilable to French "secularism" on a nationalist basis.

We should keep our mouth shut because of false dichotomies, got it.

[Tim Cornelis]

. But I still don't think that Islam, or its prophet are above satire.

Could I ask MustCrushCapitalism, #FF0000, and Majakovskij why they thanked this post when they seem to think that Islam is above satire, and that we shouldn't make caricatures thereof, because it offends some muslims? Perhaps you thanked the post for another reason and do not agree with that.

Essentially I'm asking those named above, whether it is okay for me to draw Mohammed naked.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

i am forums posters ethics gradient i understand muslim problems and islam better than they do they're so lazy about understanding their world view

have you ever considered they might actually not be that pissed off about depiction of muhammed but the very islamophobic message you usually see in them? like the muhammed bomb one which has some pretty bloody obvious implications about the essentially violent nature of islam as a religion. Political cartoons usually have some kind of messages, you know? In these cartoons, it's that islam is a violent or repressive religion, things like terrorist attacks are something that are connected to islam and all muslims. That's the point, not the point that their religion bans depicting Muhammed. The fact that people go "haha fuck islam imma draw mohammed muslims are so nuts" pisses people off, not the fact that Mohammed is being drawn ffs.

The only people who think this is solely related to a religious issue with the depiction of Muhammad are the people who have a ridiculous and naive concept of Muslims all being deeply religious scholars, which is exactly what I was attacking in that post. My point about the other prophets was to highlight a very obvious point of laziness within the religion to illustrate how idiotic that conception is.

Also, I was raised as a Muslim, so yeah I feel qualified to comment on this, is that ok with you?

[Jimmie Higgins]

So in 1932, if people in France made a movie describing all the irrational beliefs of Judaism and the gender segregation of the religion and so on... yeah, that's simply criticizing religion with no context whatsoever and gives no ideological ground the NAZIs:rolleyes:. It indeed does not give ideological ground to Nazism, quite the contrary actually.How does criticizing Judiasm and Jews for being insular and having irrational ideas and religious beliefs... not give ideological ground in the context of the NAZIs arguing that Jews and Judiasm are irreconcilable with "European" values and culture not giving ideological ground the the NAZIs?

How does it do the opposite?

Frankly, your arguments are abstract and can only aid the right-wings of both in the oppressor countries and the oppressed countries. These "brave" anti-religion crusaders (pun intended) that have been singling out a religion practiced by both the domestic immigrant population and in countries being occupied by NATO and the US are polarizing the situation in a way that only bolsters nationalism while doing nothing to promote "secularism". The basis of these cartoons in effect is to pit "good decent CIVILIZED bourgeois free-speech" on the one hand against the "barbarous fanaticism of religious Islamic people" on the other. In oppressed countries these types of things are "proof" that the right needs to draw people who are rightfully upset at oppression into orbit around the right-wing.

[Tim Cornelis]

How does criticizing Judiasm and Jews for being insular and having irrational ideas and religious beliefs... not give ideological ground in the context of the NAZIs arguing that Jews and Judiasm are irreconcilable with "European" values and culture not giving ideological ground the the NAZIs?

How does it do the opposite?

Take the example of far-right ethnic nationalist parties in the Netherlands int he 1980s. These would receive between 2-4% of votes in elections. After a while these parties became defunct, but they were not succeeded by other ethnic nationalist parties, but by more moderate national conservative parties who appealed to the same voter with their message of anti-migration but did not subscribe to the anti-democratic point of view as these ethnic nationalist parties did. In essence, their message was co-opted and now ethnic nationalist parties are virtually nothing.

Let it be clear though, I do not call for leftists to co-opt an anti-migration or xenophobic message.

But let me ask you a question in return,

Is it okay for me to draw Mohammed naked? Or does this mean I support imperialist wars and oppression of minorities?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Could I ask MustCrushCapitalism, #FF0000, and Majakovskij why they thanked this post when they seem to think that Islam is above satire, and that we shouldn't make caricatures thereof, because it offends some muslims? Perhaps you thanked the post for another reason and do not agree with that.

Essentially I'm asking those named above, whether it is okay for me to draw Mohammed naked.Stick a pencil up your nose for all I care, just don't do it in the name of Marxism or anarchism and working class revolution because it is counter-productive for our aims.

And if you owned some means of media distribution, then I would oppose you mocking Islam in the US or Europe on an anti-religious or nationalist basis. And yes you would be doing more of a service to the far right than you would be for us.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Take the example of far-right ethnic nationalist parties in the Netherlands int he 1980s. These would receive between 2-4% of votes in elections. After a while these parties became defunct, but they were not succeeded by other ethnic nationalist parties, but by more moderate national conservative parties who appealed to the same voter with their message of anti-migration but did not subscribe to the anti-democratic point of view as these ethnic nationalist parties did. In essence, their message was co-opted and now ethnic nationalist parties are virtually nothing.
Um, maybe I'm not understanding, but are you arguing that anti-immigrant racism becoming MAINSTREAM is your answer to stopping anti-immigrant racism?! So if only the Republicans started arguing for epulsion of non-whites, non-anglos from the US, then we could finally defeat the KKK and neo-nazis?

[Tim Cornelis]

Stick a pencil up your nose for all I care, just don't do it in the name of Marxism or anarchism and working class revolution because it is counter-productive for our aims.

Wouldn't that be opportunism? I favour principle of "productiveness." Indeed, it would be far more productive to adopt a homohpobic, queerphobic, agenda and perhaps a mix of nationalism, as the majority of the population holds these views. But I favour principle over these reactionary views.


Frankly, your arguments are abstract and can only aid the right-wings of both in the oppressor countries and the oppressed countries. These "brave" anti-religion crusaders (pun intended) that have been singling out a religion practiced by both the domestic immigrant population and in countries being occupied by NATO and the US are polarizing the situation in a way that only bolsters nationalism while doing nothing to promote "secularism".

Oh the victimhood. Islam has been singled out by these far-right anarchists! Oh the humanity. I suppose satirising the pope and Jesus Christ does not count.


The basis of these cartoons in effect is to pit "good decent CIVILIZED bourgeois free-speech" on the one hand against the "barbarous fanaticism of religious Islamic people" on the other.

Would people please stop using "bourgeois" as a buzzword/association fallacy? Thanks. But you're right. Why wouldn't we pit free speech to religious fanaticism. I don't see what is wrong with that.


In oppressed countries these types of things are "proof" that the right needs to draw people who are rightfully upset at oppression into orbit around the right-wing.

Explain. And also explain how cartoons are oppressive or was that a freudian slip?


Um, maybe I'm not understanding, but are you arguing that anti-immigrant racism becoming MAINSTREAM is your answer to stopping anti-immigrant racism?! So if only the Republicans started arguing for epulsion of non-whites, non-anglos from the US, then we could finally defeat the KKK and neo-nazis?

You misunderstood. It was an example, an analogy. I'm not arguing for that. The example was not to provide an example of xenophobia being defeated, but rather the example was about the anti-democracy aspect.

At first, anti-migration sentiment was articulated by ethnic nationalist and fascist anti-democratic parties. Now, it is expressed by pro-democratic national conservative parties.

A semi-fictitious example that would perhaps be less confusing:

Immigration is criticised by the far-right Golden Dawn, and they offer a simple solution: mines around the border and deportation of all non-Greeks.
Now, we could pretend there are no problems with migration because if we did we would supposedly aid the Golden Dawn by admitting there are problems. Perhaps the 'head in sand' solution is more to your liking.
Or, we could acknowledge there are problems with migration and offer our own solution: proletarian internationalist anti-capitalism.

[ed miliband]

doesn't seem to be correct to say 'charlie hebdo' is an "anarchist" newspaper; seems to be a sort of french 'private eye', more monty python than kropotkin. everyone and everything is a target, but that certainly doesn't make it an "anarchist" newspaper.

i mean, it seems to sell more copies than all other anarchist papers/zines/periodicals do combined, it's a mass-produced, mass market magazine.

would be a bit like saying the guardian is communist because they occasionally publish pieces by zizek, negri and so on.

[Os Cangaceiros]

While I think that you should really be "allowed" to draw whatever you want, and I'm all for free expression and creativity, I think that incitement merely for the sake of incitement is rightly associated with immaturity. That's not to say that all things that piss off some Muslims fall under this category..."The Satanic Verses" definitely didn't. But this latest YouTube video definitely did.


Indeed, it would be far more productive to adopt a homohpobic, queerphobic, agenda and perhaps a mix of nationalism, as the majority of the population holds these views. But I favour principle over these reactionary views.

Yeah, many people hold negative social views, and they should be challenged in a constructive manner. But I think that's different from, say, drawing a picture of Jesus sodomizing Mohammed. You should be able to draw that if you want, but I don't see any political value in it.

[Red Commissar]

Attention for a good cause. Anyone should have the right to criticise any religion.


Then why not publish it before? Why now? You can't deny that these are timed for the current atmosphere to get attention.



Again such a pathetic unsubstantiated claim. They risk their lives, you really think they are in it for the money?Right, they are risking their lives. Is it really that hard to publish some dumb shit then put it out to market?

Who do you think is putting their lives at risk right now more, the people living in places like the Middle-East, North Africa, South Asia etc. trying to effect change on their own and fight against conservatives, sometimes at the expense of their own lives, or people living comfortably in France with government protection where armchair politicians lord their inherent superiority over the unclean masses?

Frankly I have a lot more sympathy for those trying to effect a meaningful change in their countries, rather than those who, living in France, are inevitably targeting their paper to like minded individuals or orientalists talking about the white man's burden.

[Tim Cornelis]

Then why not publish it before? Why now? You can't deny that these are timed for the current atmosphere to get attention.

I'm not denying it, firstly. Look what you're responding to. Of course they want attention, and so do you and I.


Right, they are risking their lives. Is it really that hard to publish some dumb shit then put it out to market?

I probably wouldn't dare to do so out of fear of retaliation.


Who do you think is putting their lives at risk right now more, the people living in places like the Middle-East, North Africa, South Asia etc. trying to effect change on their own and fight against conservatives, sometimes at the expense of their own lives, or people living comfortably in France with government protection where armchair politicians lord their inherent superiority over the unclean masses?

What does that have to do with anything? Can't I support secularists/atheists in the Muslim world and anti-religious propagandists in the West? Or are those wholly incompatible? But shouldn't you condemn secularists and non-religious in the Muslim world for criticising Islamism?


Frankly I have a lot more sympathy for those trying to effect a meaningful change in their countries, rather than those who, living in France, are inevitably targeting their paper to like minded individuals or orientalists talking about the white man's burden.

White man's burden? What? That is completely unrelated. In fact, the orientalism here seems to be expressed by "your" side of the argument, pretending as if Muslim/Arab countries are poor and Muslims are incapable of thinking rationally (while the reality is, Muslim countries seem to be better off than Christian countries). The white man's burden? How is criticising Islam, generally a "non-white" religion part of the white man's burden? If anything, wouldn't it be the other way around?

[rti]

Good.

They claim they caricature everyone so i dont see why Islam should get special treatment.

And especially people should not be scared to express themselves because some poor Muslims might get angry.

For all forum warriors - you should make a trip to Saudi Arabia or so and start criticizing Isalmic religion there , maybe that would put some sense into your head.
If "islamophobs" are "racist" against Muslim you should see Muslim being "racists".

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Could I ask MustCrushCapitalism, #FF0000, and Majakovskij why they thanked this post when they seem to think that Islam is above satire, and that we shouldn't make caricatures thereof, because it offends some muslims? Perhaps you thanked the post for another reason and do not agree with that.

Essentially I'm asking those named above, whether it is okay for me to draw Mohammed naked.

I do agree with it and I don't consider Islam to be above satire. I'm not sure why you're getting that impression. I'm all for satirizing the reactionary institution of religion, the issue is that when it's being done by another section of the religious right, as in the case of TIoM, it's being done from a reactionary, religious right perspective, and as such isn't really any better than what they're criticizing. There's no reason to take sides when reactionaries are criticizing other reactionaries. A big part of the reason why I haven't expressely criticized Charlie Hebdo in this thread is the "no religion should get special treatment" argument. Hebdo doesn't seem to be giving any special treatment, the TIoM people are specifically targeting Islam.

Yes. It is. I don't have any issue with satirizing Islam - I have an issue with reactionaries satirizing Islam. I'm a fan of Jesus and Mo (http://www.jesusandmo.net/) actually.

doesn't seem to be correct to say 'charlie hebdo' is an "anarchist" newspaper; seems to be a sort of french 'private eye', more monty python than kropotkin. everyone and everything is a target, but that certainly doesn't make it an "anarchist" newspaper.

"Irreverent and stridently non-conformist in tone, the publication has a strongly left-wing, anarchist slant." -Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo)

It's a left-wing oriented magazine, at least.



Related - http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/09/17/salman-rushdie-innocence-of-muslims/

I have a massive amount of respect for Salman Rushdie and he seems to share basically my opinion on the matter.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Certainly, no religion is above criticism and generally there are no exceptions that should be made, even for Islam. However, I get the feeling that those who seek to "criticize" Islam are placing Islam at the center of the argument--and it comes off as if religious criticism is unconditionally progressive in the final instance.

But from what I've read, this approach has far more in common with the so-called "New Atheist" school than Marxism. In the first place, the constant dissemination of anti-religious propaganda largely precludes any engagement with these people in hopes to win them to the class struggle against capitalism. Second, we must be very attentive to the social context in which we criticize Islam; it must be immediately apparent that Marxist criticism has nothing in common with those who are providing an ideological impetus to the bourgeoisie to demonize Islamic practitioners in the interests of imperialism. As such, the move by this anarchist paper is wholly cynical and opportunist. It deserves no defense whatsoever.

My position on this matter is derived from Lenin (bold emphasis mine): http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

Why does religion retain its hold on the backward sections of the town proletariat, on broad sections of the semi-proletariat, and on the mass of the peasantry? Because of the ignorance of the people, replies the bourgeois progressist, the radical or the bourgeois materialist. And so: “Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!” The Marxist says that this is not true, that it is a superficial view, the view of narrow bourgeois uplifters. It does not explain the roots of religion profoundly enough; it explains them, not in a materialist but in an idealist way. In modern capitalist countries these roots are mainly social....Fear of the blind force of capital—blind because it cannot be foreseen by the masses of the people—a force which at every step in the life of the proletarian and small proprietor threatens to inflict, and does inflict “sudden”, “unexpected”, “accidental” ruin, destruction, pauperism, prostitution, death from starvation—such is the root of modern religion which the materialist must bear in mind first and foremost, if he does not want to remain an infant-school materialist.
If we wish to stay on solid theoretical ground here, we have to recognize the appearance of this cartoon for what it is, and not what we would like it to be.

[#FF0000]

lol rti isn't banned yet


And especially people should not be scared to express themselves because some poor Muslims might get angry.

no one is tho. it's just dumb and sort of fucked up to go to some muslims in the west and say "HEY GUESS WHAT FUCK MOHAMMED LOL".

Especially now where muslims are the hip new xenophobic scapegoat.


For all forum warriors - you should make a trip to Saudi Arabia or so and start criticizing Isalmic religion there , maybe that would put some sense into your head.
If "islamophobs" are "racist" against Muslim you should see Muslim being "racists".

i am pretty sure i explained to you no less than five times why this is a stupid thing to say and why you are stupid.

'bb-b-b-b-b-but the extremely conservative and traditionalist governments we prop up over there are very bigoted and intolerant!"

"Yup"

"SO WE SHOULD BE TOO"

stupid.

[#FF0000]

How dare anyone condemn anyone for criticising any religion.

yeah see religion isn't the thing, stupid. idk if you live under a rock but it is 2012 and muslims are the big bad "other" and the target of bigotry all over Europe and America. That is the context in which this is done.


It is unbelievable that you all would rather defend the ultra-reactionary scum revolting over a shitty youtube videoThat is not who anyone is defending nor is that even an accurate description of what's going on and who is doing what.


than defend those who challenge these people through satire. It's pathetic and the world turned upside down.You're right let's extend the olive branch to geert wilders while we're at it lol

And while we're at it there's a lil saying about satire that goes "you don't use satire against the weak". I'd say that's a good general rule of thumb, and is definitely something to consider given the scapegoating of muslims lately.

[cynicles]

I like how the french government banned a protest by muslims over the publishing. FREE SPEECH HO!!!!! Also eewww Rushdie.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Does this newspaper get much circulation in majority Muslim countries? I doubt it. So how would they know about it? While I've no doubt the editors were likely seeking to stir shit or at least get the attention that controversy brings, it also wouldn't surprise me if firebrands in the Middle East seeking to kick up a fuss for their own social and political purposes were deliberately spreading this stuff in an attempt to inflame people to violence.

The majority of the reaction to that piece of shit film has been peaceful, but there are idiots on both sides.

[#FF0000]

Does this newspaper get much circulation in majority Muslim countries?

there are muslims in france. they're sort of a punching bag for their right-wing every so often, too.

that is why this is a shitty thing

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wouldn't that be opportunism? I favour principle of "productiveness." Indeed, it would be far more productive to adopt a homohpobic, queerphobic, agenda and perhaps a mix of nationalism, as the majority of the population holds these views. But I favour principle over these reactionary views.No, rejecting nationalism even when cloaked in secular and "progressive" values is principled.


Oh the victimhood. Islam has been singled out by these far-right anarchists! Oh the humanity. I suppose satirising the pope and Jesus Christ does not count.Depends on the context.

http://www.arenastage.org/shows-tickets/sub-text/2011-12-season/eugene-oneill-festival/images/anti-catholic-cartoon.jpg
http://www.thepublicprofessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Anti-Catholic-cartoon.jpg

Is the satire of local church leaders or organization for supporting sexist or homophobic laws? Or is it an anti-immigrant attack in the US or right-wing attack in Northern Ireland? It depends.


Would people please stop using "bourgeois" as a buzzword/association fallacy? Thanks. But you're right. Why wouldn't we pit free speech to religious fanaticism. I don't see what is wrong with that.Oh boy. Because it's not really about Free speech, it's about making a group of people seem bizarre and irrational so that you can deny them rights as immigrants and justify why you (that is our rulers) have a forgin policy that largely revolves around preventing popular democratic control of areas populated by a lot of Muslims.


Explain. And also explain how cartoons are oppressive or was that a freudian slip?No, imperialism is oppressive. People are rightfully upset with US and NATO involvement in the region in wars and backing dictators and so on. This frustration can be expressed through a political movement, a working class movement, or a religious movement and so the reason that religious groups used these kinds of things is to justify a religious explanation for the oppression by these countries.

So the point is that this sort of thing is counterproductive. Who is the audience of a cartoon like this? Religious leaders in other countries? Religious fanatics in other countries? No, it's secular French people so they can think "how civilized we are, how irrational they are".

That's where the anti-veil thing comes from - in the case of this newspaper and other progressive anti-theists who fall into Islamophobic logic, I think it's probably unwitting on their part, seeing things abstractly rather than in political context. This is how groups in the 2nd international justified support of their home rulers: well isn't our system so much more free than German militarism! This is the logic that led people like Christopher Hitchens to support the War on Terror by the US and UK.


A semi-fictitious example that would perhaps be less confusing:

Immigration is criticised by the far-right Golden Dawn, and they offer a simple solution: mines around the border and deportation of all non-Greeks.
Now, we could pretend there are no problems with migration because if we did we would supposedly aid the Golden Dawn by admitting there are problems. Perhaps the 'head in sand' solution is more to your liking.
Or, we could acknowledge there are problems with migration and offer our own solution: proletarian internationalist anti-capitalism.There are no problems with migration. The earth is not overpopulated and scarcity of jobs is the result of capitalist organization of labor.

And my alternative to the "head in the sand" position is to organize native and migrant workers together against the bosses and the fascists.

[Crux]

I haven't seen 'Innocence of Muslims' but how is criticising Islam reactionary? As I understand, the maker of the film is Arab himself so no excuses about it being "racist."
Then perhaps you should watch it.



Which of the following pictures is racist, and of those pictures which have been re-printed by this French newspaper?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef0168eafaf0b9970c-400wi

The bomb hat? The obvious "bearded-arab-with-sabre" racist caricatures? But I suppose you're the same kind of person that finds nothing racist in Hérgé's comics, or to be more precise, ethnic caricatures either?
I can dig up caricatures supposedly aimed at orthodox jews as well, and say "oh that's not racist, after all not all jews are orthodox or even religious". But they still pretty much are. Does that mean orthodox jewish reactionaries, of which there are many, can't be criticized either? of course not, but you have to be aware in what context and how you are doing it.

Also I find people who waste their time doing jesus charicatures to be the most boring shit ever.

[Crux]

Good.

They claim they caricature everyone so i dont see why Islam should get special treatment.

And especially people should not be scared to express themselves because some poor Muslims might get angry.

For all forum warriors - you should make a trip to Saudi Arabia or so and start criticizing Isalmic religion there , maybe that would put some sense into your head.
If "islamophobs" are "racist" against Muslim you should see Muslim being "racists".
Speaking as a member of an organization with a fairly large pakistani section and several exiled members from Iran, well perhaps you should try using actual argument instead your outraged liberal/borderline racist bullshit?
Ah fuck it. He's banned. I went back and looked through his posts and well, yeah obvious racist troll is obvious.


For the record here's our, meaning the CWI's, take on it. (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5953)

[#FF0000]

Ah fuck it. He's banned. I went back and looked through his posts and well, yeah obvious racist troll is obvious.

I think a lot of people on revleft give people too much credit. I don't think rti is a troll. I think he is honest-to-god stupid. A lot of the people we call "trolls" are.

[Krano]

Good.

They claim they caricature everyone so i dont see why Islam should get special treatment.

And especially people should not be scared to express themselves because some poor Muslims might get angry.

For all forum warriors - you should make a trip to Saudi Arabia or so and start criticizing Isalmic religion there , maybe that would put some sense into your head.
If "islamophobs" are "racist" against Muslim you should see Muslim being "racists".
Yes lately some people have been saying that people should censor themselfs for Islam and yes you can't criticize Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Why exactly was this guy banned? not exactly controversial points to make.

[#FF0000]

Yes lately some people have been saying that people should censor themselfs for Islam

like who?


and yes you can't criticize Islam in Saudi Arabia.no one said this wasn't true.


Why exactly was this guy banned? not exactly controversial points to make.Probs because of the whole "RACISM IS SELF-DEFENSE" thing he said.

Read his posts, silly.

[Lucretia]

Can we be honest and admit that the people publishing this rag are behaving in a reactionary way that reinforces the imperialist narrative harming the Global South, but that the response to it is also incredibly reactionary insofar as it results in blind violence and fervent nationalist hatred against "westerners" who dare criticize their imaginary sky entity?

What we are being asked to do here is literally similar to having to choose between Obama and Romney. Neither side's behavior deserves unconditional defense and is totally in the right. Both share considerable blame. And we really shouldn't be sticking of for either of them on this issue.

[Ocean Seal]

Guys it really doesn't matter what you think of Muhammed, but this is pretty reactionary simply because it is being published in the aftermath of the whole Innocence of Muslims film. I mean they saw what happened, people boiling over because of the film, and of course their demonization, and so on, and yet they still chose to do this. Enjoy the 15 minutes, who cares about the consequences.

[#FF0000]

Can we be honest and admit that the people publishing this rag are behaving in a reactionary way that reinforces the imperialist narrative harming the Global South, but that the response to it is also incredibly reactionary insofar as it results in blind violence and fervent nationalist hatred against "westerners" who dare criticize their imaginary sky entity?

Yeah I agree.

I just think people have this view that muslims in general are like this and I don't think this is true. I'm concerned about my fellow workers who happen to be muslim and are made to feel unwelcome in their communities by these people who want to "other" them.

[campesino]

I thought we were leftist. we have the right to criticize what we wish. the talk on this board seems to think all middle easterners and poor people are religious, as a man who is poor, let me tell you how many poor around the world don't take their religion seriously.

it seems we fear alienating muslims, even though Islam's popularity is dependant on its popularity with the ruling class.

the protest on the streets are mostly religious extremist who don't have a place in a progressive society.

the reason so many flocked to islamism is because it monopolized anti-imperialism sentiment. it was the alternative to the actual threat (to the illegitimate powers) of marxism, the wealthy gulf royals would rather have islamism, than marxism, so they funded and promoted sunni islamist organizations killing two birds with one stone, eliminating the shia "threat" and the marxist threat.

so do not fear publishing anti-islamic cartoons/writings. the people of the middle east do not give a crap.

the one who do give a crap are the well funded/violent/attention grabbing islamist groups.

don't forget the many arabic atheist philosophers of the medieval ages.

when the muslims took jerusalem in the medievel era, do you think the serfs of europe gave a crap? was it they who intiated the crusades, or was it the "nobility" the ruling classes, the knights, the crusaders and the church.

[Crux]

I thought we were leftist. we have the right to criticize what we wish. the talk on this board seems to think all middle easterners and poor people are religious, as a man who is poor, let me tell you how many poor around the world don't take their religion seriously.

it seems we fear alienating muslims, even though Islam's popularity is dependant on its popularity with the ruling class.

the protest on the streets are mostly religious extremist who don't have a place in a progressive society.

the reason so many flocked to islamism is because it monopolized anti-imperialism sentiment. it was the alternative to the actual threat (to the illegitimate powers) of marxism, the wealthy gulf royals would rather have islamism, than marxism, so they funded and promoted sunni islamist organizations killing two birds with one stone, eliminating the shia "threat" and the marxist threat.

so do not fear publishing anti-islamic cartoons/writings. the people of the middle east do not give a crap.

the one who do give a crap are the well funded/violent/attention grabbing islamist groups.

don't forget the many arabic atheist philosophers of the medieval ages.

when the muslims took jerusalem in the medievel era, do you think the serfs of europe gave a crap? was it they who intiated the crusades, or was it the "nobility" the ruling classes, the knights, the crusaders and the church.
No, it's just that I as a life-long atheist don't want anything to do with racists espousing neo-colonialist bullshit about "savages" in the middle east. The islamists certainly aren't a majority current in the muslim world and they do take advantage of things like these but that doesn't mean we should be completely ignorant about the racist content of much so called "criticism of islam" emanating from the West.

[#FF0000]

do you dopes even read these posts

[Robocommie]

do you dopes even read these posts

I don't, I just look for my friends and thank their posts blindly.

...I read this one though.

[Positivist]

I'm not familiar with this paper, but mohammed is not my prophet, and, as such, is not sacred to me. Fuck Islam, it doesn't deserve any special exceptions.

Fuck Islam, but not Muslims. Any socialist who's worthy of the title acknowledges that people aren't religious out of stupidity or something, and rather cling to it and its false promises because their lives fucking suck. Believe it or not though, these Muslims don't know this and actually have deep sentimental attachments to the Islamic religion! And guess what?! Mocking Islam isn't going to change this!

So everybody defending this grow the fuck up and realize that workers are religious and are for a clear reason, and that you're not going to engage them by making funny comics insulting their beliefs. The socialist approach to religion should be hasty at most. There are more workers who will support the notion that they should be directly managing there own surplus and enjoying its benefits than there are workers who are ready to denounce everything they've grown up being taught and in many cases loving. This should he obvious, but ya know, guess not.

[RedSonRising]

Fuck Islam, but not Muslims. Any socialist who's worthy of the title acknowledges that people aren't religious out of stupidity or something, and rather cling to it and its false promises because their lives fucking suck. Believe it or not though, these Muslims don't know this and actually have deep sentimental attachments to the Islamic religion! And guess what?! Mocking Islam isn't going to change this!


I agree with your overall sentiments that these critiques come from an ugly, reactionary place, but you must stop and recognize the complete irony within the content of what you're saying. Do you not see the problems with criticizing entire cultural belief systems as invalid? Saying that religious beliefs aren't held due to stupidity, but then turning around and saying that working class religious people only believe in what they do because the harshness of their lives doesn't allow them to see "rationally" beyond their "false" ideas, well...that's a bit of a contradiction. Both maintain a condescending assumption that a reductionist and strictly material world view is acceptable for someone committing themselves to the struggle for proletarian liberation. How do you think it sounds to a Central American Liberation Theologist or a practicioner of Falun Gong resisting genocide when you say: "once you're social and material needs are met in the wake of the revolution, you'll let go of all these silly sky wizard stories and join us atheist socialists in the real world"?

There's nothing wrong with critiquing a religion or religion as concept itself, but in my experience, Western leftists need to mature their understanding of social spirituality as a cultural facet, and that it's destruction and elimination in favor of Western rationalism isn't at all tantamount to the liberation of the global working class.

[Robocommie]

How do you think it sounds to a Central American Liberation Theologist or a practicioner of Falun Gong resisting genocide when you say: "once you're social and material needs are met in the wake of the revolution, you'll let go of all these silly sky wizard stories and join us atheist socialists in the real world"?

I just ignore it, myself. It's irritating sometimes, but I do it.

[feather canyons]

I support the systematic and intentional destruction of religious thought and its artifacts, but this does not help. All this does is mobilize Arabs against the left.

[Thirsty Crow]

I agree with your overall sentiments that these critiques come from an ugly, reactionary place...
What critiques, what criticism?
In my opinion, it's ridiculous to consider mockery as critique, and I cannot see just how those drawings could be considered anything but mockery.

[RedSonRising]

What critiques, what criticism?
In my opinion, it's ridiculous to consider mockery as critique, and I cannot see just how those drawings could be considered anything but mockery.

That was my point; but these recent mockeries aren't the only ones that have been done, and many are offered as "critiques". And you have people on this board being just as condescending in different form, only referring to their cultural insensitivity as "criticisms."

[Geiseric]

I have to admit, in retrospect that came off as biggoted, in the first page. what I meant is that people with more challenging and frustrating lives, like many Muslims in the middle east who have had to deal with wars waged by NATO, see religion as alot more important than a not so much deeply religious person whose familly is in it and so is he, or if a person isn't religious at all, like most of us here i'd assume.

We can't just get rid of it, there is a psychological need for religion for anybody who has an extremely tough life, or has had to survive on a lot less. Many people in south america are fanatically religious, but they give money, while their kids are starving, to these priests on TV. I'd bet that if somebody showed them a movie about how jesus wasn't a son of god in basically a cheech and chong type caricature, they would be angry. Or even if a friend of theirs told them about it.

[the last donut of the night]

I'm not familiar with this paper, but mohammed is not my prophet, and, as such, is not sacred to me. Fuck Islam, it doesn't deserve any special exceptions.

this has never been solely about islam. sigh

[Geiseric]

Fuck those catholics in Ireland, i'm not a papist, so why should I give a fuck how they are screwed by the English state?

I mean basically the logic behind those supporting these aggitations is "Get over it!" which echoes what I said earlier, that it is the same logic as thirteen year olds in my old high school.

[ed miliband]

i was right about 'hebdo' not being an anarchist magazine... the editor is a pcf supporter and the editorial team includes "anarchists, ecologists, communists, Trotskyists and Socialists".

so yeah... can the title be changed?

[Rottenfruit]

I'm not familiar with this paper, but mohammed is not my prophet, and, as such, is not sacred to me. Fuck Islam, it doesn't deserve any special exceptions.
Yeah when South Park can have Jesus Christ snortin cocaine in it's tv show then a cartoon of muhammed is fine.

[Igor]

Yeah when South Park can have Jesus Christ snorttin cocaine in it's tv show then a cartoon of muhammed is fine.

yes your average christian is indeed often a target of racist attacks in the united states, which is pretty much the primary target area of south park. yes they are

how the fuck can you guys be leftists and still so out of touch when it comes to racism and shit jesus. this isn't about islam. those cartoons are racist as fuck and seriously many of them are portraying caricatures pretty much comparable to blackface. but no that's shit cool because "mohammed isn't my prophet"

[Luís Henrique]

As a rule of thumb, it is not a criticism of religion if it is not a criticism of the dominant religion in the place we live in, and of its ties to the political and economic power here.

More or less like our position regarding interbourgeois foregin conflicts. If we don't have the guts or the will or the interest in criticising the bourgeoisie in our country, then whatever criticism we make of national bourgeoisies abroad - particularly if they are in open conflict with the national bourgeosie in the country we live in - smacks of chauvinism and nationalism.

Islam is a reactionary religion. It is not a pillar of bourgeois political power here in Brazil though. Catholicism and neo-Protestantism are. That's the difference that matters to me.

Luís Henrique

[Krano]

yes your average christian is indeed often a target of racist attacks in the united states, which is pretty much the primary target area of south park. yes they are

how the fuck can you guys be leftists and still so out of touch when it comes to racism and shit jesus. this isn't about islam. those cartoons are racist as fuck and seriously many of them are portraying caricatures pretty much comparable to blackface. but no that's shit cool because "mohammed isn't my prophet"
Bad example, Jesus has been beaten up by Santa Claus,Satan and stabbed to death in South Park. South Park makes fun of all religions and I'm sure many people have been offended by the show,
but only one religion has called for the death of the shows creators.

[Tim Cornelis]

I have no time to respond in detail to all objections, but briefly: given the anti-Semitism of many on the far-right, I suppose we are not allowed to criticise Zionism.


Fuck those catholics in Ireland, i'm not a papist, so why should I give a fuck how they are screwed by the English state?

I mean basically the logic behind those supporting these aggitations is "Get over it!" which echoes what I said earlier, that it is the same logic as thirteen year olds in my old high school.

Faulty analogy. Nobody is saying we don't care about the oppression of Muslims. An accurate analogy would be: "the oppression of the English state of the Irish people is no excuse nor does it excuse outrage, murdering, protests or riots of a satirical cartoon of the Pope by this magazine."

[hatzel]

Bad example, Jesus has been beaten up by Santa Claus,Satan and stabbed to death in South Park. South Park makes fun of all religions and I'm sure many people have been offended by the show,
but only one religion has called for the death of the shows creators.

Hahahaha religions are autonomous entities now? Where exactly can I find this one religion you speak of and ask him/her/it for his/her/its opinion? Do I have to make an appointment? Please give me Islam's phone number so that we can put this matter to bed once and for all :)

Oh and so you know it's pretty 'cool' [/sarcasm] how your instant reaction to somebody pointing out what should be abundantly obvious facts - that an American mocking Christianity has almost no potential whatsoever for racism, whilst those mocking Islam and/or Muslims very obviously feed an overtly racist discourse, the very discourse which has been used for a good 200+ years to justify Euroamerican intervention in 'the Orient,' in order to (not quoting anybody in particular, just a broad pro-imperialist position) 'put those horrid savages back in their place and save them from the tyranny of their barbaric ways' - is to say (and I paraphrase) "only them pesky Muslims are savage enough to make a load of death threats, barbaric fuckers can't even take a joke!" (and this, incidentally, is only true if you treat religions as monolithic abstractions, rather than collections of disparate individuals, but we've already established that you do that, so we can see the source of your problems here) Because clearly that's what you're communicating here, even if you weren't brave enough to use the words. Seriously acceptable stuff going on here, no lies...

[Igor]

I have no time to respond in detail to all objections, but briefly: given the anti-Semitism of many on the far-right, I suppose we are not allowed to criticise Zionism.

that's dumb nobody is saying you can't criticize political islam (which i guess would be the closest equivalent to zionism here), actually that's what people should do. but you're not "allowed" to be anti-semitist and cloak it in criticism of the state of Israel, Jewish institutions or whatever, which is what is exactly happening with islam in these cartoons, which tend to be pretty racist and made with the intention of targeting a group that's a religious minority in countries like France and already under constant attacks.

it's like you people are completely blind to the idea of context or something with your knee-jerk "ruh rah religion is bad" bullshit.

[Igor]

Bad example, Jesus has been beaten up by Santa Claus,Satan and stabbed to death in South Park. South Park makes fun of all religions and I'm sure many people have been offended by the show,
but only one religion has called for the death of the shows creators.

yeah when a handful of extremists does shit they represent a billion-member religion by that makes total absolute sense

and i bet you'd find a southern baptist or something who'd call for their death, it's just that they're fairly unnotable minority. you might think this could be the case with muslims too, that most of them would be fairly normal people who don't want to behead random people all the time but in the other hand that goes against my prejudice so...

[Crux]

that's dumb nobody is saying you can't criticize political islam (which i guess would be the closest equivalent to zionism here), actually that's what people should do. but you're not "allowed" to be anti-semitist and cloak it in criticism of the state of Israel, Jewish institutions or whatever, which is what is exactly happening with islam in these cartoons, which tend to be pretty racist and made with the intention of targeting a group that's a religious minority in countries like France and already under constant attacks.

it's like you people are completely blind to the idea of context or something with your knee-jerk "ruh rah religion is bad" bullshit.
I mean suppose there were caricatures of say orthodox jews, a group who by the way would be more clearly connected to reactionary tendencies than say muslims in general, couldn't that still be considered quite problematic? I mean depending on the context of course, but you know...Yeah I don't get how some people, wilfully or not, blind themselves to the context here.