# Charlie Hebdo, racist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 10, 2015, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482 "2015-01-10T16:51:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/61 "2015-01-14T12:29:29Z")
There’s a fascinating essay [here](http://posthypnotic.randomstatic.net/charliehebdo/Charlie_Hebdo_article%2011.htm) by a former long-term contributor to _Charlie Hebdo._ (It was written before the murders, in response to an article in\* Le Monde\* signed by Charb and Fabrice Nicolino, and can be a little uncomfortable to read now as a result.) The author’s (passionately expressed) opinion is that _Charlie Hebdo_ did become racist in the years since 9/11, as they lost sight of the divide between anti-cericalism and racism: > [@](#): > > But let’s return to the question of “relationship” between Arabs and Muslims, racism and Islamophobia. Is the boundary that you trace with such bold assurance between the two categories really so clear in your minds? To read the beginning of your opinion piece, it’s possible to be sceptical. The edifying story about the “Arab taxi driver”, who refused the business of a contributor to your journal “because of its cartoons mocking Islam”, reveals a certain confusion in this regard. What does the quality of “Arabic” ascribed to the driver – who, according to you, could not simply be French – tell us about the insult suffered by your wretched colleague? Do you believe that only an “Arab” would turn their nose up at your crass offerings? I, who am neither an Arab nor a taxi driver, am not sure if I would lend your collaborator the price of a Metro ticket. Nevertheless, I hope he got over his culture shock and found a white driver who would allow him in their back seat. > > You’re right, Arab and Muslim, it’s not the same thing. But you know what? Muslim and Muslim, it’s not the same thing either. Understand this: there are all sorts, rich and poor, big and small, friendly and rude, generous and greedy, wanting a better world, reactionary or even, yes, fundamentalist. On the other hand, in Charlie Hebdo, nothing resembles a Muslim more than another Muslim. Always represented as weak-minded, fanatical, terrorist, on the benefit. A Muslim woman? Always a poor dumb thing reducible to her headscarf, with no other social function than to arouse the libido of your comedians. > [@](#): > > You have the nerve to accuse your detractors of “essentialism”, and without doubt the numbskulls who worship you will applaud your acrobatics. But this isn’t a circus. You wallow in your essentialism every week - or nearly - by racializing Muslims, constantly depicting them as grotesque or hideous creatures. > [@](#): > > Don’t worry, I’m not saying that reading Charlie Hebdo automatically unleashes a craving to bucket a mosque with pig’s blood or to rip the veil off a supermarket shopper, as happens here and there. You’ve pointed out the targets, but you wouldn’t want some poor guy to attack them for real, because you’re against violence and against racism. As are, most certainly, your readers. They have no prejudice against Muslims. It’s just that they break out in whole-hearted laughter at that Charb cartoon where an Arab with a big moustache stops in front of a prostitute, while a bearded preacher sermonizes: “Brother! Why would you pay 40 euros for a single shag when for the same price you could buy a wife!” In the 1930s, the same gag - with Jews instead of Muslims - would have gone down a treat, except that, at the time, its teller would surely not have had the idea to wave around a certificate of anti-racism. The cartoon in question illustrated an article unmasking the dark designs of a small group of Salafists in Brussels. The subtitle sums up its thrust well: “Will all Belgium’s chips soon be halal? Some beards are pushing for it, and are fighting the democracy which allows them to exist[14].” What? Islamification of chips, democracy in danger? > [@](#): > > You claim for yourself the tradition of anticlericalism, but pretend not to know the fundamental difference between this and Islamophobia. The first comes from a long, hard and fierce struggle against a Catholic priesthood which actually had formidable power, which had - and still has - its own newspapers, legislators, lobbies, literary salons and a huge property portfolio. The second attacks members of a minority faith deprived of any kind of influence in the corridors of power. It consists of distracting attention from the well-fed interests which rule this country, in favour of inciting the mob against citizens who haven’t been invited to the party, if you want to take the trouble to realise that - for most of them - colonisation, immigration and discrimination have not given them the most favourable place in French society. Is it too much to ask a team which, in your words “is divided between leftists, extreme leftists, anarchists and Greens”, to take a tiny bit of interest in the history of our country and its social reality? I don’t know enough context to weigh up the truth of this, but he seems to have a fair amount of evidence for his claims and a fairly solid background (c.10 years writing for the magazine) to make them from. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/62 "2015-01-14T13:03:04Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Well, for one thing as a (future) historian I’m always irked when historical figures are judged going by modern standards of ethics and culture - by which I mean that, had it not been commonplace in the early middle-ages for older men to marry younger, even extremely younger women then maybe that factoid about Muhammad’s journey might be worth mentionning and been a slight on his character. But it was, so it isn’t ; and it’s profoundly retarded to equate his wedding with Aïsha with pedophilia (and calling her a whore, too ? Make up your mind, Charb.). Hang on, I don’t think the cartoon called the historical figure a whore, just that it was more expensive to find a child prostitute to make the film and a pig’s head was cheaper (and though fictional…actually less offensive) If a religion wants to suggest that a 1500 year old doctrine was perfect at the time and remains perfect and immutable now and the prophet, his actions and his words are set in stone and cannot be challenged then I call bullshit. Which is it, was the prophet right to do what he did or wrong? Follow his example or not? do what he did or not? Or is it fine to deviate where modern sensibilities raise problematic questions? If so when? and how? and who gets to decide? Ill judge a fallible human under a different set of criteria than an infallible divine creature but either way I’m free to criticise disgusting behaviour. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/63 "2015-01-14T13:24:53Z")
Hey, cool ! I’d been wanting to link to Cyran’s piece earlier but couldn’t find an English version and, well, couldn’t be arsed to translate _all of that_ just because some people are Wrong. On the Internet :). Thanks, **Stanislaus**. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/64 "2015-01-14T13:56:39Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Well, for one thing as a (future) historian I’m always irked when historical figures are judged going by modern standards of ethics and culture - by which I mean that, had it not been commonplace in the early middle-ages for older men to marry younger, even extremely younger women then maybe that factoid about Muhammad’s journey might be worth mentionning and been a slight on his character. But it was, so it isn’t ; and it’s profoundly retarded to equate his wedding with Aïsha with pedophilia (and calling her a whore, too ? Make up your mind, Charb.). > > For another, again, I don’t think the latter is true at all - when people criticize Israel, when satirits lampoon the Ultra-Orthodox, do they go “hurr durr Abraham was an old rapist” (Hagar didn’t really have a say in the matter, did she ?) or call him “Abraham the sister-fucker” ? Do they repeat it over and over and over ? No. No they don’t. > > For a last one, what the fuck does Muhammad’s personal life has to do with Islam, or Islamism, or Islamic terrorism ? It’s like being assigned a book analysis on the themes of, I don’t know, _Journey to the End of the Night_ in college and spitting out a paper with CELINE WAS AN ANTISEMITE COLLABORATIONIST written four hundred times. It’s true, but what the fuck does that have to do with anything ? And I heard you the first 399 times already ! > > It’s been their weekly turn going on 15 years now. Maybe someone should shake the machine a bit, it appears to be stuck. 1. I don’t know how old Aisha was when her marriage to Muhammed was consummated, but if she was nine, she wasn’t an ‘extremely younger woman’, she wasn’t a woman at all. 2. No, child marriage was not ‘commonplace’ at least in Europe, and marriages were generally not consummated until after menarche (which in the Middle Ages happened somewhat later than it does today, although the exact age is disputed). 3. It’s a pretty core belief in Islam that Muhammed was the best and greatest of men, so yes, his personal life has a lot to do with Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/65 "2015-01-14T14:11:33Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Hang on, I don’t think the cartoon called the historical figure a whore, just that it was more expensive to find a child prostitute to make the film and a pig’s head was cheaper (and though fictional…actually less offensive) It’s ambiguous I guess. You could read it as either “I couldn’t afford a 9 year old prostitute [to stand in for Aisha]” or “I couldn’t afford a 9-year old prostitute [which is what Aisha was]”. > [@](#): > > If a religion wants to suggest that a 1500 year old doctrine was perfect at the time and remains perfect and immutable now and the prophet, his actions and his words are set in stone and cannot be challenged then I call bullshit. The only “perfect and immutable” part of Islam is the Koran, which AFAIK provides no guidelines whatsoever re:the proper age of majority. The bio of Muhammad (the sira) and the stuff he said besides what Gabriel had told him to say (the hadith) certainly have a large influence on Muslim doctrine, but they are _absolutely_ subject to debate, interpretation and so forth. The individual authenticity of each hadith is judged differently by the various sects (or even individual teachers within each sect). Which one trumps the other in which cases, when multiple hadith seem to say different or even opposite things, is also up for (a lot of) debate. It’s a religion codified by a Semitic people. They argue about things. It’s what they do. Ask the Jews, they know. And I don’t believe anybody claims Muhammad led an absolutely perfect existence either, though I’m just a historian, not a theologian. Only Allah is perfect and so on. > [@](#): > > Which is it, was the prophet right to do what he did or wrong? Does it have to be one or the other ? > [@](#): > > Follow his example or not? do what he did or not? Or is it fine to deviate where modern sensibilities raise problematic questions? If so when? and how? and who gets to decide? Now, bear in mind that I’m _really_ not a specialist on Islam per se, but from what I understand : The ummah (that is to say, the community of the faitfhul, collegially) does. The fiqh (that is to say, the practical application of the teachings and jurisprudence) is mutable, with generally speaking sunnis being more attached to traditions and shias generally speaking having a more analytical, philosophical, reason-based and subjective approach. In actual practice, scholars and imams study the hadith and history of Islam along with the huge body of analysis already written, to try and find guidelines on how to treat new situations whenever they arise ; and proclaim what \*\*they \*\*believe this or that bit means, whether or not that hadith should be dismissed or not etc… And when a consensus is reached by the imams of a community, the faithful tend to follow their advice. But ultimately, the fatwas and the proclamations are just opinions, they’re not dogmatic law to be executed OR ELSE like a papal bull would be. > [@](#): > > Ill judge a fallible human under a different set of criteria than an infallible divine creature but either way I’m free to criticise disgusting behaviour. Muhammad wasn’t and never claimed to be an infallible divine creature. He never claimed one bit of divinity at all. He was just a bloke, and always insisted that he was just a bloke, who happened to be the receptor of a one-way phone line with Allah - _that’s why you’re not supposed to create representations of him in the first place_. Granted, this concept got turned on its head over the centuries but the purpose of the prohibition was to steer clear of any form of personal veneration or idolatry centered around his likeness (such as the ones practiced by his Byzantine neighbours, where people were even attributing magical powers to paintings of Jesus and the saints) ; while according to him, and his bro Gabriel, the only thing a good Muslim should ever venerate and hold sacred is Og and his revealed word. So he kinda failed on that front. Which only goes to show how infallible he wasn’t ;). ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/66 "2015-01-14T14:32:52Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 1. No, child marriage was not ‘commonplace’ at least in Europe, and marriages were generally not consummated until after menarche (which in the Middle Ages happened somewhat later than it does today, although the exact age is disputed) You’re joking I presume ? Among the aristocracy, for whom marriage was all about diplomatic alliances, there was only the[rule of expediency](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_consorts). Isabella of Angoulême was married at 12. Judith of Bavaria was 14. Matilda of Frisia 10. Constance of Castille 13. Isabelle of Hainaut 10. Blanche of Burgundy 12. Need I go on ? All of these would be “pedophile kings’ wives”, yeah ? Muhammad really wanted to cement a long term alliance with Abu Bakr’s family, _right now_. So. Aïsha. 9 or 10. Or 12. Or maybe 19. Sources vary. Baptismal records could not be found (:it is a genealogy joke:). The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/67 "2015-01-14T14:52:22Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > It’s ambiguous I guess. You could read it as either “I couldn’t afford a 9 year old prostitute [to stand in for Aisha]” or “I couldn’t afford a 9-year old prostitute [which is what Aisha was]”. OK, I read it as the former but then there may be a nuance missed in translation that tips it one way or t’other. ---
**Author:** ![Stately\_Greek\_Automaton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Stately\_Greek\_Automaton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stately_Greek_Automaton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/68 "2015-01-14T18:59:07Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > It’s ambiguous I guess. You could read it as either “I couldn’t afford a 9 year old prostitute [to stand in for Aisha]” or “I couldn’t afford a 9-year old prostitute [which is what Aisha was]”. To be fair, there are lots of ways to interpret that cartoon. I took the it as a dig against the producer of the movie, not necessarily against Islam. The Innocence of Muslims was a pretty ignorant movie, ripe for ridicule. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/69 "2015-01-14T23:39:02Z")
> [@Stately\_Greek\_Automaton](#): > > To be fair, there are lots of ways to interpret that cartoon. I took the it as a dig against the producer of the movie, not necessarily against Islam. The Innocence of Muslims was a pretty ignorant movie, ripe for ridicule. True. I guess I’m not inclined to give Charb the benefit of the doubt in this case, because I’m not analysing this cartoon in isolation if you take my meaning. Nor the “Muhammad the pedophile”… dogwhistle ? No, that’s not quite the right idiom. Rallying cry maybe. But hey, I reserve the right to be blatantly unfair - 'cause fair’s fair, right ? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/70 "2015-01-15T11:56:30Z")
My understanding is that the life of the Prophet is of overwhelming importance because of his perfection. As the perfect man it means that unless Allah deemed an action in his life an error he had to confess to his actions are a guide to living and a guide to interpretation. It also makes writing a non-hagiographic biography as an Islamic scholar a rather risky business as the Egyptian scholar (whose name I forget) found out. Not to mention Rushdie. [The Importance of Prophet Muhammad and His Status as a Role Model](The Importance of Prophet Muhammad and His Status as a Role Model) > [@](#): > > In conclusion: > > The importance of the status of Prophet Muhammad as a role model is defined in the Holy Quran and in the sunnah; this constitutes one of the foremost practices for Muslims. > There is no disagreement among Muslims as to the fact that Prophet Muhammad constitutes the best example with his morality, actions, words and other features. > It would not be correct to demote the Prophet’s status as role model to a limited number of fields. This status is related to all fields of life. > Prophet Muhammad’s status as role model is important not only from the perspective of the individual, but also from the social perspective. Its binding features and determination of methods must be considered from these two perspectives. > Prophet Muhammad’s status as role model and the validity of the sunnah are not limited to his life or to a certain time period. The Holy Quran and the notions of the sunnah state this issue clearly, and the fact that Muslim community practices his sunnah is proof of this issue. > Prophet Muhammad’s status as role model and the continuity of his sunnah are the most important components that provide a unifying force in the Muslim world. > It is important to study the lives of the Companions in order to understand and comprehend the status of Prophet Muhammad as a role model. This is what the leading scholar of the Salafi (who apparently are synonymous with wahhibism in Saudi) has to say on child marriage on [Islam Question and Answer](http://islamqa.info/en/178318). In discussing various scholarly views it quotes on of the great jurists (without endorsing) > [@](#): > > Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: > > The scholars are unanimously agreed that the father may arrange a marriage for his young daughter without consulting her. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) married ‘Aa’ishah when she was six years old. > > End quote from at-Tamheed, 19/98 The life and actions of the Prophet (as elaborated on in various external sources that are pillars of different schools of islamic law provide the context in which these different schools interpret the Koran) are of huge significance in Islam. It’s particularly important if a jurist interpretation considers the chronology of his life can be used to reconcile the differing and contradictory nature of the Koran. With regard to the islamic justification modern terrorism this is crucial because this means the ‘sword verses’ over-ride all the earlier ‘play nice’ religion of peace parts. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/71 "2015-01-15T13:46:32Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > This is what the leading scholar of the Salafi (who apparently are synonymous with wahhibism in Saudi) has to say on child marriage on [Islam Question and Answer](http://islamqa.info/en/178318). Do you go to AnswersInGenesis for your information on what Christians around the world and across denominations think of evolution ? ETA : I also still don’t quite grok what any of this has to do with “the islamic justification of modern terrorism”, but hey. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/72 "2015-01-15T14:09:39Z")
**Kobal** , I’ve found your answers in this thread (and some of the debate) very enlightening. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/73 "2015-01-16T00:05:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > **Kobal** , I’ve found your answers in this thread (and some of the debate) very enlightening. Thank you. Yes, I’d like to second this. Excellent posts. And thank you to **Stanislaus** for the [link](http://posthypnotic.randomstatic.net/charliehebdo/Charlie_Hebdo_article%2011.htm) to the translated essay by the former Charlie Hebdo contributor. ---
**Author:** ![bashere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@bashere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bashere)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/74 "2015-01-16T01:22:13Z")
nm. Not worth the effort. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/75 "2015-01-16T09:12:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > **Kobal** , I’ve found your answers in this thread (and some of the debate) very enlightening. Thank you. > [@camille](#): > > Yes, I’d like to second this. Excellent posts. Let me guess, y’all need money. A place to crash ? A cigarette, what ? 🙂 (I’m awkward with praise and never knew how to respond to it without feeling like an idiot :o ) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/76 "2015-01-16T16:04:30Z")
A blowjob would be nice. I’m not helping am I? ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482/77 "2015-01-16T18:53:38Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > As pointed out at the time (I think by Trey and Matt themselves), it was one nutter. There wasn’t much widespread rage against South Park and Trey and Matt are fine. But that episode is no longer aired, and you can not stream it from the Comedy Central website. This is a decision that they made based on safety. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-hebdo-racist/709482.md?page=3)