This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Well apparently its out, but already sold out, at least in Paris. I tried 3 different shops this morning (Enghien les Bains & Paris) & all had sold out & I've just seen in Le Monde that they had all gone by 7 O'clock at the Gare de l'Est (http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2015/01/14/charlie-hebdo-les... ). Anyone manage to buy a copy ?
Although oddly I didn't see a single copy being read on the train or métro
Although oddly I didn't see a single copy being read on the train or métro
In reply to Doug:
If it is not permitted to show a likeness of the prophet and since there are no "official" images of him then how does anyone know that the cartoon is his "likeness" instead of just some old guy with a beard?
If it is not permitted to show a likeness of the prophet and since there are no "official" images of him then how does anyone know that the cartoon is his "likeness" instead of just some old guy with a beard?
In reply to Doug:
(www.Some Aution site).co.uk/itm/Charlie-Hebdo-Magazine-Special-Edition-January-14-2015-UK-Version-/301486377301?pt=UK_Books_Comics_Magazines_European_Comics_ET&hash=item4631fd0955
Hope they are donating to some charity or other.
£760 so far
(www.Some Aution site).co.uk/itm/Charlie-Hebdo-Magazine-Special-Edition-January-14-2015-UK-Version-/301486377301?pt=UK_Books_Comics_Magazines_European_Comics_ET&hash=item4631fd0955
Hope they are donating to some charity or other.
£760 so far
Post edited at 08:49
In reply to m0unt41n:
Seems that in the past, Muslim artists did produce paintings of Mohamed (but not Allah), particularly in Iran so there is something to work from. Plus we know when & where he lived & can assume he probably looked like the typical guy of that time & place.
Seems none of my colleagues could buy a copy, although some of them were at their local newsagents for 7 o'clock.
Seems that in the past, Muslim artists did produce paintings of Mohamed (but not Allah), particularly in Iran so there is something to work from. Plus we know when & where he lived & can assume he probably looked like the typical guy of that time & place.
Seems none of my colleagues could buy a copy, although some of them were at their local newsagents for 7 o'clock.
In reply to Doug:
it seems people were reserving copies, so the kiosks might not have had many to display.
"Kiosk owners told French media they had received large numbers of reservation requests, while at one shop in Paris all copies were reportedly sold out within 30 minutes."
it seems people were reserving copies, so the kiosks might not have had many to display.
"Kiosk owners told French media they had received large numbers of reservation requests, while at one shop in Paris all copies were reportedly sold out within 30 minutes."
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Seems more copies will become available over the next few days, wonder if Bruce managed to buy a copy ?
Seems more copies will become available over the next few days, wonder if Bruce managed to buy a copy ?
In reply to Doug:
Here are a few of the new cartoons inside.
http://order-order.com/2015/01/14/see-cartoons-inside-the-new-charlie-hebdo...
I think there might be an online edition at some point
Here are a few of the new cartoons inside.
http://order-order.com/2015/01/14/see-cartoons-inside-the-new-charlie-hebdo...
I think there might be an online edition at some point
1
In reply to m0unt41n:
There was an interesting piece on the PM programme on R4 the other evening where they went through what the Qu'ran (is that how we're writing it these days?) had to say about this. They referenced a piece on the BBC website from 2005 but I have't been able to find it.
Anyway, it said a number of interesting things. One was that there wasn't any such prohibition on images of Mohammed or Allah. There were a couple of references to the error of worshipping idols, which sounded very similar to what the Old Testament says (that bit about Moses taking against the Golden Calf etc).
Then there some secondary references to various bits of the Hadith disapproving of representations of the prophets generally - which seems to me would then include images of Abraham and other prophets, not to mention Christ.
Now, I'm no Islamic scholar but even if the Qu'ran is taken as a perfect and unalterable divine revelation it seems to me Charlie Hebdo is in the clear. The other bit is just the random prejudices and musings of various men in beards over the centuries and even then various traditions have different views and degrees of paranoia and egomania. If we take them seriously we'll be removing a lot of statuary from churches and locking up a couple of Blake paintings for a start.
I am going be getting myself a translation of the Qu'ran though. I'm tired of people who appear not to have read it telling me what we can print in our newspapers and a lot of people who should know better not contradicting them.
> If it is not permitted to show a likeness of the prophet
There was an interesting piece on the PM programme on R4 the other evening where they went through what the Qu'ran (is that how we're writing it these days?) had to say about this. They referenced a piece on the BBC website from 2005 but I have't been able to find it.
Anyway, it said a number of interesting things. One was that there wasn't any such prohibition on images of Mohammed or Allah. There were a couple of references to the error of worshipping idols, which sounded very similar to what the Old Testament says (that bit about Moses taking against the Golden Calf etc).
Then there some secondary references to various bits of the Hadith disapproving of representations of the prophets generally - which seems to me would then include images of Abraham and other prophets, not to mention Christ.
Now, I'm no Islamic scholar but even if the Qu'ran is taken as a perfect and unalterable divine revelation it seems to me Charlie Hebdo is in the clear. The other bit is just the random prejudices and musings of various men in beards over the centuries and even then various traditions have different views and degrees of paranoia and egomania. If we take them seriously we'll be removing a lot of statuary from churches and locking up a couple of Blake paintings for a start.
I am going be getting myself a translation of the Qu'ran though. I'm tired of people who appear not to have read it telling me what we can print in our newspapers and a lot of people who should know better not contradicting them.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Good for you for making the effort, but I get the impression ( I'll admit I haven't made the effort, but I have been listening and reading with interest) that you may find it's like the Bible - lots of internal contradictions, open to very different interpretations. As you say, the Bible supposedly forbids worship of imagery, and Christian churches are floor-to-ceiling with images of God and Christ.
It's also the case that there have been representations of Mohammed and/or Allah in Islamic art in the Middle Ages, so the current prohibition is not an absolute position.
> I am going be getting myself a translation of the Qu'ran though. I'm tired of people who appear not to have read it telling me what we can print in our newspapers and a lot of people who should know better not contradicting them.
Good for you for making the effort, but I get the impression ( I'll admit I haven't made the effort, but I have been listening and reading with interest) that you may find it's like the Bible - lots of internal contradictions, open to very different interpretations. As you say, the Bible supposedly forbids worship of imagery, and Christian churches are floor-to-ceiling with images of God and Christ.
It's also the case that there have been representations of Mohammed and/or Allah in Islamic art in the Middle Ages, so the current prohibition is not an absolute position.
In reply to Doug:
I thought it would have had more impact if Mo was just waving the "Je suis Charlie"sign. Tears and the "all is forgiven" line rather complicate what could have been a nice simple idea.
I thought it would have had more impact if Mo was just waving the "Je suis Charlie"sign. Tears and the "all is forgiven" line rather complicate what could have been a nice simple idea.
In reply to tony:
It depends on the flavour of Islam.
Sunni variants are generally against any images of living things, although have been struggling with that recently with tv etc, but particular Mohammed and Allah.
Others such as the Shia not so much.
It occurs to a lesser extent in Christianity eg whether they use a Crucifix or a cross.
> It's also the case that there have been representations of Mohammed and/or Allah in Islamic art in the Middle Ages, so the current prohibition is not an absolute position.
It depends on the flavour of Islam.
Sunni variants are generally against any images of living things, although have been struggling with that recently with tv etc, but particular Mohammed and Allah.
Others such as the Shia not so much.
It occurs to a lesser extent in Christianity eg whether they use a Crucifix or a cross.
Post edited at 11:18
In reply to Dave Garnett:
The whole of the Qu'ran is available on line on various web sites, e.g.:
http://quran.com/
Quite a usable translation:
http://www.wright-house.com/religions/islam/Quran.html
But good luck/ be warned, a lot of it is quite incoherent (like some of the gobblydegook in e.g. Deuteronomy, only worse). At times, though, it's perfectly intelligible and surprisingly gentle. E.g.:
'Those who reject Allah, hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, and resist the Messenger, after Guidance has been clearly shown to them, will not injure Allah in the least, but He will make their deeds of no effect.'
The whole of the Qu'ran is available on line on various web sites, e.g.:
http://quran.com/
Quite a usable translation:
http://www.wright-house.com/religions/islam/Quran.html
But good luck/ be warned, a lot of it is quite incoherent (like some of the gobblydegook in e.g. Deuteronomy, only worse). At times, though, it's perfectly intelligible and surprisingly gentle. E.g.:
'Those who reject Allah, hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, and resist the Messenger, after Guidance has been clearly shown to them, will not injure Allah in the least, but He will make their deeds of no effect.'
In reply to dissonance:
I'm not certain, but I believe a major difference is that it's much easier in Islam for additions to be made to the doctrines. Called a 'fatwa' - basically any cleric of sufficient level can add these things. If I remember correctly, things only took a turn for the worse last century - before that Islam was quite moderate.
I'm not certain, but I believe a major difference is that it's much easier in Islam for additions to be made to the doctrines. Called a 'fatwa' - basically any cleric of sufficient level can add these things. If I remember correctly, things only took a turn for the worse last century - before that Islam was quite moderate.
In reply to Doug:
No, I did get the last copy of the Canard Enchainé though Apparently they stopped taking reservations even yesterday and this was an shopping zone of N Seine et Marne. In more "intellectual" areas I imagine it would have been the even worse, or better rather for Charlie. As they are said to have printed 3 million this makes a hundredfold increase on their normal 30 000 issues per month.
Reading these threads it seems many posters who haven't lived in France don't quite understand the significance of the magazine, why all the fuss about a journal which printed so few per month? It's hard to explain, at least I haven't been able to.
As you said there will be more available in the days to come, but with the backlog of reservations it might still be hard to get a copy.
No, I did get the last copy of the Canard Enchainé though Apparently they stopped taking reservations even yesterday and this was an shopping zone of N Seine et Marne. In more "intellectual" areas I imagine it would have been the even worse, or better rather for Charlie. As they are said to have printed 3 million this makes a hundredfold increase on their normal 30 000 issues per month.
Reading these threads it seems many posters who haven't lived in France don't quite understand the significance of the magazine, why all the fuss about a journal which printed so few per month? It's hard to explain, at least I haven't been able to.
As you said there will be more available in the days to come, but with the backlog of reservations it might still be hard to get a copy.
1
In reply to tony:
The Bible is definitely open to interpretation, but that's a bad example - definitely none of the mainstream denominations worship images. The churches have lots of images, statues etc., but they are meant to remind the worshippers of the beings or events from the bible - they're never worshipped directly.
> you may find it's like the Bible - lots of internal contradictions, open to very different interpretations. As you say, the Bible supposedly forbids worship of imagery, and Christian churches are floor-to-ceiling with images of God and Christ.
The Bible is definitely open to interpretation, but that's a bad example - definitely none of the mainstream denominations worship images. The churches have lots of images, statues etc., but they are meant to remind the worshippers of the beings or events from the bible - they're never worshipped directly.
In reply to dissonance:
Which is kind of my point - reverting to the original text doesn't actually resolve the differences, since different flavours make different interpretations and there is no definitive answer.
> It depends on the flavour of Islam.
Which is kind of my point - reverting to the original text doesn't actually resolve the differences, since different flavours make different interpretations and there is no definitive answer.
In reply to SenzuBean:
There is nothing moderate about Islam and never has been :
http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-isla...
On occasions it has been on the defensive (though then it displays a powerful sense of enraged victimhood), but it is inherently antagonistic, intolerant, aggressive and expansionist. It is incompatible with liberalism, democracy and a relatively tolerant, advanced society. It is by far the most actively dangerous and regressive of the world's major faiths and appeasement will not help to address its violent and invasive tendencies, they will only encourage greater and more intrusive demands.
> I. If I remember correctly, things only took a turn for the worse last century - before that Islam was quite moderate.
There is nothing moderate about Islam and never has been :
http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-isla...
On occasions it has been on the defensive (though then it displays a powerful sense of enraged victimhood), but it is inherently antagonistic, intolerant, aggressive and expansionist. It is incompatible with liberalism, democracy and a relatively tolerant, advanced society. It is by far the most actively dangerous and regressive of the world's major faiths and appeasement will not help to address its violent and invasive tendencies, they will only encourage greater and more intrusive demands.
1
In reply to climbwhenready:
That's true for Anglicans but less so for Catholics, especially as you head further South where the worship of statues and relics and the whole "saints" business makes for a religion which seems quite different.
> The churches have lots of images, statues etc., but they are meant to remind the worshippers of the beings or events from the bible - they're never worshipped directly.
That's true for Anglicans but less so for Catholics, especially as you head further South where the worship of statues and relics and the whole "saints" business makes for a religion which seems quite different.
In reply to climbwhenready:
Ever been in an orthodox church ? looks pretty close to worshipping icons at times
> ... The churches have lots of images, statues etc., but they are meant to remind the worshippers of the beings or events from the bible - they're never worshipped directly.
Ever been in an orthodox church ? looks pretty close to worshipping icons at times
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Made me laugh, well done.
Did you really expect it to say slay everyone in the most inhumane way possible.
Isn't that what a lot of people have been saying for some considerable time, that these fundamentalist / terrorists have perverted what is actually written and their actions have nothing to do with Islam / religion.
> ..... and surprisingly gentle.
Made me laugh, well done.
Did you really expect it to say slay everyone in the most inhumane way possible.
Isn't that what a lot of people have been saying for some considerable time, that these fundamentalist / terrorists have perverted what is actually written and their actions have nothing to do with Islam / religion.
In reply to Doug:
I haven't, actually. I'm thinking of anglicans and catholics where this confusion often arises...
anyway, I don't want to divert the thread!
I haven't, actually. I'm thinking of anglicans and catholics where this confusion often arises...
anyway, I don't want to divert the thread!
In reply to Simon4:
Good job! That'll help ease the tension.
> On occasions it has been on the defensive (though then it displays a powerful sense of enraged victimhood), but it is inherently antagonistic, intolerant, aggressive and expansionist. It is incompatible with liberalism, democracy and a relatively tolerant, advanced society. It is by far the most actively dangerous and regressive of the world's major faiths and appeasement will not help to address its violent and invasive tendencies, they will only encourage greater and more intrusive demands.
Good job! That'll help ease the tension.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
The Koran has no relevance to what can be printed in our newspapers. As soon as we start referring to religious books to decide things like that we are surrendering our freedoms. The whole idea that someone's opinions are more or less valid depending on whether they have studied the Koran is dangerous.
Suppose the Hindus started getting offended about the way we treat cows would we give in to them as well?
> I am going be getting myself a translation of the Qu'ran though. I'm tired of people who appear not to have read it telling me what we can print in our newspapers and a lot of people who should know better not contradicting them.
The Koran has no relevance to what can be printed in our newspapers. As soon as we start referring to religious books to decide things like that we are surrendering our freedoms. The whole idea that someone's opinions are more or less valid depending on whether they have studied the Koran is dangerous.
Suppose the Hindus started getting offended about the way we treat cows would we give in to them as well?
Post edited at 12:17
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I would guess the difference is due, at least in part, to protestantism which is stronger in the North. The influence of the protestant reformation and the Iconoclasm which was part of that,
> That's true for Anglicans but less so for Catholics, especially as you head further South
I would guess the difference is due, at least in part, to protestantism which is stronger in the North. The influence of the protestant reformation and the Iconoclasm which was part of that,
In reply to tony:
Yup its the problem with any religious text. Very few are that clear and hence are interpretation central with, unfortunately, people then taking that interpretation as holy law. Thats before you add translation issue into it as well. Is it "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder"?
> Which is kind of my point - reverting to the original text doesn't actually resolve the differences, since different flavours make different interpretations and there is no definitive answer.
Yup its the problem with any religious text. Very few are that clear and hence are interpretation central with, unfortunately, people then taking that interpretation as holy law. Thats before you add translation issue into it as well. Is it "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder"?
In reply to Simon4:
Weak. Who else can join in this game of whose shit stinks worst?
> There is nothing moderate about Islam and never has been :
Weak. Who else can join in this game of whose shit stinks worst?
In reply to Morgan Woods:
There is a *very* simple idea in the image but it is, probably deliberately, not being mentioned in the mainstream press because it's not exactly conciliatory.
> I thought it would have had more impact if Mo was just waving the "Je suis Charlie"sign. Tears and the "all is forgiven" line rather complicate what could have been a nice simple idea.
There is a *very* simple idea in the image but it is, probably deliberately, not being mentioned in the mainstream press because it's not exactly conciliatory.
Post edited at 12:27
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You make a very valid point, but I think he intends to argue with Muslims who don't like images from a position of knowledge?
Since none of the religions look like actually going away, or not any time soon at least, it may be a worthwhile & pragmatic approach.
> The Koran has no relevance to what can be printed in our newspapers. As soon as we start referring to religious books to decide things like that we are surrendering our freedoms. The whole idea that someone's opinions are more or less valid depending on whether they have studied the Koran is dangerous.
> Suppose the Hindus started getting offended about the way we treat cows would we give in to them as well?
You make a very valid point, but I think he intends to argue with Muslims who don't like images from a position of knowledge?
Since none of the religions look like actually going away, or not any time soon at least, it may be a worthwhile & pragmatic approach.
Post edited at 12:28
In reply to Dave Garnett:
In reply to tony:
It is very similar to the Bible in that they are both incredibly dry, dull books for the most part, with just the occasional juicy bit thrown in every now and then. On the whole, the Bible is a more varied, interesting read than the Koran, which at times reads a little like the drunken rantings of a tired man in a mid-life crisis.
If you can't read the Bible cover to cover (a mammoth task in itself), there is no way in hell you can plow through the Koran, which, although shorter, is much more taxing.
> I am going be getting myself a translation of the Qu'ran though. I'm tired of people who appear not to have read it telling me what we can print in our newspapers and a lot of people who should know better not contradicting them.
In reply to tony:
> Good for you for making the effort, but I get the impression ( I'll admit I haven't made the effort, but I have been listening and reading with interest) that you may find it's like the Bible - lots of internal contradictions, open to very different interpretations.
It is very similar to the Bible in that they are both incredibly dry, dull books for the most part, with just the occasional juicy bit thrown in every now and then. On the whole, the Bible is a more varied, interesting read than the Koran, which at times reads a little like the drunken rantings of a tired man in a mid-life crisis.
If you can't read the Bible cover to cover (a mammoth task in itself), there is no way in hell you can plow through the Koran, which, although shorter, is much more taxing.
In reply to tony:
God only knows what he's trying to say. So Islam is "incompatible with liberalism, democracy and a relatively tolerant, advanced society...and appeasement will not help to address its violent and invasive tendencies" so we should...? Attempt to rid the world of Islam by force maybe, I dunno. Or have specifically anti-Islamic policies in place to undermine their equal access to the things our modern society offers, while promoting the interests of Jews and Christians? Or maybe just use the media and government to issue clear messages that Islam is bad. One could argue if only we had any idea about what his point was.
> Good job! That'll help ease the tension.
God only knows what he's trying to say. So Islam is "incompatible with liberalism, democracy and a relatively tolerant, advanced society...and appeasement will not help to address its violent and invasive tendencies" so we should...? Attempt to rid the world of Islam by force maybe, I dunno. Or have specifically anti-Islamic policies in place to undermine their equal access to the things our modern society offers, while promoting the interests of Jews and Christians? Or maybe just use the media and government to issue clear messages that Islam is bad. One could argue if only we had any idea about what his point was.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
OK, I'm duly warned. I doubt it's any worse than the European Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulations though!
> But good luck/ be warned, a lot of it is quite incoherent (like some of the gobblydegook in e.g. Deuteronomy, only worse).
OK, I'm duly warned. I doubt it's any worse than the European Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulations though!
In reply to Pete Houghton:
A religious text only works if it is impenetrable garbage. The whole machinery of religion is founded on the utter ambiguity of the texts.
> If you can't read the Bible cover to cover (a mammoth task in itself), there is no way in hell you can plow through the Koran, which, although shorter, is much more taxing.
A religious text only works if it is impenetrable garbage. The whole machinery of religion is founded on the utter ambiguity of the texts.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I'm not sure that's true... look at some of the earlier written gospels of Scientology's prophet: easy-to-understand, bite-sized, occasionally even banal science fiction stories.
I'm not sure that's true... look at some of the earlier written gospels of Scientology's prophet: easy-to-understand, bite-sized, occasionally even banal science fiction stories.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I agree, I wouldn't change my view on how we should behave in a secular society whatever it says. However, it's especially frustrating when the argument is based on an assertion that isn't even true, even by its own terms of reference. I'd just like to be able to say so with more confidence next time I hear it.
>The whole idea that someone's opinions are more or less valid depending on whether they have studied the Koran is dangerous.
Except on the subject of what it actually says.
> The Koran has no relevance to what can be printed in our newspapers. As soon as we start referring to religious books to decide things like that we are surrendering our freedoms.
I agree, I wouldn't change my view on how we should behave in a secular society whatever it says. However, it's especially frustrating when the argument is based on an assertion that isn't even true, even by its own terms of reference. I'd just like to be able to say so with more confidence next time I hear it.
>The whole idea that someone's opinions are more or less valid depending on whether they have studied the Koran is dangerous.
Except on the subject of what it actually says.
In reply to Pete Houghton:
Does Scientology 'work' as a religion? I thought it was just a showbiz cult.
Does Scientology 'work' as a religion? I thought it was just a showbiz cult.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I agree, except I think as soon as you start arguing about whether it is true based on its own terms of reference you have fallen into a trap by tacitly accepting that its terms of relevance should be relevant to your opinion or the law.
If someone mugs someone at knifepoint and afterwards justifies his actions by saying he is a Communist and it says in the Communist Manifesto that the proletariat should rise up and take bourgeois people's money there is no reason for me to form a view on whether he interpreted Marx correctly to conclude he should be in jail.
> I agree, I wouldn't change my view on how we should behave in a secular society whatever it says. However, it's especially frustrating when the argument is based on an assertion that isn't even true, even by its own terms of reference. I'd just like to be able to say so with more confidence next time I hear it.
I agree, except I think as soon as you start arguing about whether it is true based on its own terms of reference you have fallen into a trap by tacitly accepting that its terms of relevance should be relevant to your opinion or the law.
If someone mugs someone at knifepoint and afterwards justifies his actions by saying he is a Communist and it says in the Communist Manifesto that the proletariat should rise up and take bourgeois people's money there is no reason for me to form a view on whether he interpreted Marx correctly to conclude he should be in jail.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...