Several readers sent me the new cover of Charlie Hebdo (CH), which I reproduce below. It shows a tearful Muhammad holding a sign that says (in translation) “I am Charlie”—the motto taken up by many after the murders—along with the header “Tout est pardoné”: “Everything is forgiven.” The new print run, instead of being the usual 60,000, will be 50 times that—3 million copies, and in 16 languages. I don’t suppose the murderers anticipated that their thuggery would revive and popularize a financially ailing publication.
Curiously, the cover drawing came from an article in the newspaper USA Today which, like many publications cowed by fear of Muslim wrath, notes this:
USA TODAY traditionally does not show images of Mohammed to avoid offending Muslim readers. But the magazine cover has enough news value to warrant its publication in this case.
Yeah, right. The Danish Jyllands-Posten cartoons or the Charlie Hebdo covers that prompted the murders didn’t have news value, but when a new CH cover comes out after the murders and actually shows the Prophet (violence be on him), that has news value? Give me a break.
Anyway, the cover can be interpreted in several ways. Matthew had one take and I had a different one. Perhaps the magazine meant it to be ambiguous. So I’m curious how the readers interpret it. Who, exactly, is being forgiven? Is Muhammad forgiving the magazine after the outcry? Or is the magazine forgiving the murderers? Or could the magazine even be forgiving those who were too quick to take up the “I am Charlie” slogan? Might it be all of these? Or are there other interpretations that make sense?
Before you weigh in below—and I really am curious how reader see this, especially in light of the misinterpretation of the earlier CH cartoons as racist, bigoted, and homophobic—have a look at what the cartoonist himself said about the cover:
This week’s front page was drawn by cartoonist Renald Luzier, known as Luz.
[The French newspaper] Liberation said the Charlie Hebdo team took up their pens on Friday, “with the objective of showing Charlie Hebdo was not dead”.
Shortly after the attacks Luz discussed the symbol Charlie Hebdo had become during an interview with Les Inrocks.
“The media made a mountain out of our cartoons when on a worldwide scale we are merely a damn teenage fanzine,” he said.
“This fanzine has become a national and international symbol, but it was people that were assassinated, not the freedom of speech … people who sat in an office and drew cartoons.”
Finally, to put this issue to rest, have a look at the Daily Kos article, “The Charlie Hebdo cartoons no one is showing you,” which makes perfectly clear the magazine’s pro-immigrant and anti-racist slant.
If there are two social lessons from this whole horrible incident, they are these. Many magazines and newspapers are still fearful of Muslim wrath, and won’t reprint cartoons even when they have immense news value. Second, many bloggers were quick on the trigger to accuse Charlie Hebdo of racism, bigotry, and even homophobia—all without making the slightest investigation of what the cartoons actually meant. It’s time for magazines to overcome their cowardice, and for those bloggers to examine their tendency to see racism and bigotry everywhere.
I saw it as the magazine forgiving Mohammed but certainly accept it can be ambiguous as any cartoon could be.
Also it’s worth noting the BBC showed the cartoon on Newsnight & panorama last night and bbc news today so all those who have been bad mouthing it the last few days (which inc me) should take note!
That’s the way I saw it as well.
Je suis idiote. I typed in the wrong email address which I’m sure exists somewhere – now awaiting moderation. Sorry about that.
Anyway I agree with John, I saw it as forgiving Mo and I’m off to get tea.
I am pleased and surprised to report that our local TV morning news (the only TV I ever see) showed the cover.
They normally have knees of gelatin.
Maybe everyone is figuring, hey, safety in numbers. And: really, folks (Muslims), get over yourselves.
I take it as ‘god’ forgives everyone. That’s what any ‘god’ should do all the time, and that’s all that religion should be about – finding love and forgiveness and compassion for others, even if it is based upon a delusion. As long as it doesn’t affect others, they can have their peaceful religions.
What I can’t tolerate is what religion actually is, especially Islam – death cults created to control and avoid living true authentic lives as human beings.
OK, and the other thing I want to point out is: How the hell does anyone know this is Mohammad??
He’s not labeled. It’s all by innuendo. Yes, everyone gets it; but really? No one knows what Mohammad looked like.
This cartoon guy could be Guru Nanak for all anyone knows. (Yes, it’s intended to be Mohammad; but it’s really left to the viewer to decide that.)
Yes, it could be anyone. For obvious reasons, there’s no iconographic tradition that would allow him to be as recognizable as Jesus. The joke is on the people who really want it to be Mohammed.
Right. And if you can’t tell who this character is, why would you feel so passionate about it’s representation. How would anyone know if they were being offended or not? That ambiguity might be why news outlets might be feeling braver about this one.
Very good point. The magazine announced that it was Mohammed, but it could be any Arab guy. Is there nothing in the Koran about some particularity of Mohammed that could be used in a cartoon to creatively identify it as him? Like, even if there were no iconic facial traits of JC, you could still depict him on a cross, or with nails in his hands, etc.
Jerry Coyne on a cross?
/@
Beat me to it:-). It better nor be feline JC.
Your going to scare human Jerry Coyne. But, JC can also mean Julius Caesar. 🙂
Screw you homophones.
Or John Cleese. Or Jerry Cornelius. Or …
/@
I see it as a “let us all get along” sort of thing.
Example: Richard Dawkins retweeted news of an incident in which a bus driver didn’t allow a Muslim on his bus (condemning the action) and perhaps the cartoon is saying “ok, let’s stop actions like these”.
“actions like these” refers to the actions of the bus driver..
Yes. It would seem a goal of the terrorist attack in Paris was to make things hard for assimilated Muslims. Taking unwarranted vengeance against Muslims as a class is playing into the terrorists’ hands.
SO, perhaps it’s not Mohammed (as above: How would we know?) but a generic (male) Muslim… ?
/@
Yes, it’s an assumption that it’s Mo, and I can also see where it may be intentionally ambiguous as others note.
It also occurs to me there could be some cultural reference I’m missing in “all is forgiven,” but I imagine someone would have weighed in with that by now, or will yet, were that the case.
I was thinking that it meant that Mohammed was apologizing for what Islam has become in his name.
Not sure that makes much sense but it was my first impresssion.
That’s what I thought, too.
He’s not apologising though – he’s forgiving (tout est pardonné = everything is forgiven).
I didn’t think that that line was coming from Mo, it was more of a title of the cartoon.
I honestly don’t know what was intended though.
Mohammed seems to say “see I am sorry: I am Charlie”. Charlie Hebdo’s answer is “[Then] everything is forgiven”.
I am generally not fond of CHarlie Hebdo (it was worst when Philipe Val was the editor in chief) because even if they are against racism, militarization, organized religion*, homophobia, etc., they are often “gross” and sometimes binary in their approach of complex questions (I prefer Cabu’s work in “Le Canard Enchainé” for example). However I find this cartooon subtle.
Desnes
* Cavanna’s parody of the Bible, “Les Écritures: les Aventures de Dieu – les Aventures du petit Jésus” (“Scriptures: the Adventures of God – the Adventures of little Jesus”), is very amusing. The beginning (i.e. Genesis) is particularly amusing (those who read French will find the first verses here: http://prolib.net/pierre_bailleux/enfer/210.009.cavanna.creation.htm).
> However I find this cartooon subtle.
It is subtle, in the sense that it is so ambiguous as to be devoid of any clear meaning.
To me, that’s not a compliment.
Perhaps you’re true. Especially considering that nothing indicates clearly that this is indeed Mohammed.
But after all those manifestations of support, Charlie’s staff are certainly conscious that they cannot be as harsh as they normally are. For me, they found a way to affirm that they are not afraid (by saying they depict a ‘Mohammed’) and, maybe more improtantly, to not use their deaths as symbols of a ‘just’ cause. That would have been an insult to Cabu, Wolinski, Charb…
Note that even such a ‘soft’ (for Charlie Hebdo I mean) frontpage will be still perceived as a provocation by numerous muslims.
Desnes
They can’t? I sure hope that isn’t the case. Because, like you point out, there is not level of “softness” that will not provoke numerous muslims.
GBJames,
It is only my guess but I think they can’t, at least on this cover. They are probabley not on the mood for ‘killing’ humour (for obvious reasons). They have to find a way to say thank you for the support, even if it is a-la-Charlie-Hebdo. And it is probably harder to be as harsh when you are the focus of international attention than when you publish for a more confidential pool of fans.
Denes
Perhaps I’m not understanding your use of the word “can’t”.
Do you mean aren’t allowed to? Choose not to for fear of reprisal? Are in shock and can’t bring themselves to do so for emotional reasons?
If or why they can’t is beside the point, I think.
After everything that’s happened, deliberately publishing possibly the most innocuous picture of Mo, and having some Moslems still taking offence and condemning it is quite revealing.
/@
Just as a round-up, the BBC’s Newsnight has shown this new cover, complete with Mohammed. So has The Independent (with a warning: “An image in this article may offend some readers”). The Guardian did the same, with the same warning (at least online, I’ve not seen the print version).
So, some of the UK media is finding some degree of spine.
A UK poll has the public 63% to 22% saying “yes” to “Should newspapers have published the Charlie Hebdo cartoons?”.
There was probably sufficient certainty that other media outlets would print the same image and thus one publication would not be seen as going out on a limb.
Yes, this is my interpretation of the general airing/printing of the image.
But that’s all to the good. At least they are doing it. It says, hey, showing this stuff should be no big deal — because it is no big deal. The more often this happens, the better.
It is in the print edition on page 6, in a box about 2cm x 3cm alongside a story about the memorial edition as part of four pages on the murders.
It ends ‘The Guardian is running this cover as its news value warrents publication.’
The cover was just shown on the main 6 o’clock BBC news.
I think a tearful Mohammed is forgiving Charlie Hebdo.
I have seen a lot of the CH cartoons online. They are hilariously vulgar, some of them are genuinely funny, they often skewer French political figures, especially Sarkozy and Marine le Pen. You would have to be very thin-skinned and immature to be seriously offended by them.
That’s my take as well. Muhammad apologizing for what some of his followers have done.
I took it to mean “all is forgiven” the day Mo sheds a tear and holds up a Je Suis Charlie sign.
Those are some brave folks at CH. The USA Today editors may have posted a chickensh**t disclaimer, but they printed the cover all the same.
BTW I am very proud of the Kossacks for a characteristically sane and insightful analysis.
That’s how I took it, too. CH had the spine to publish the cartoons in the first place, after knowing what happened at Jyllands-Posten. They’re not being accommodating — I take it as them flat-out saying, “Hey, butchers: learn civilized values, and at that point we’ll be happy to welcome you back to civilization.” If true, that’s astonishing and commendable bravery, IMHO.
The editors did come to explain the meaning behind their cover; they are indeed courageous dudes- their intent was different from my original take.
I interpret it as a random Muslim holding the ‘Je suis Charlie’ sign.
The magazine is saying that it isn’t the fault of all Muslims, and people shouldn’t blame them (a la Rupert Murdoch).
I agree
My thought too (see under #5).
/@
That’s my take.
My initial thought as well.
But then I thought: “why would someone who had nothing to do with the attack and who happens to be Muslim need forgiveness?”
Or dress like that! That’s what the extremists and the Shariaists do. I swear to god in North America half the time we’re standing next to, or talking to Muslim Canadians and Muslim Americans we think they’re friggin Mexicans. Because they’re not wearing special outfits. It’s Mohammed. Period.
This is my take too.
Hmmm – now I’m not so sure. See Sameer’s comment below, referring to an interview with a CH colleague:
““Now three million people will have the Prophet Muhammad’s drawing at home”.
On forgiveness she said: “Charlie Hebdo’s team needs to forgive. We know that the struggle is not with people but with an ideology”.
Sounds like this is right, based on the interview. It also makes sense to me that they would want to have Muhammad on the cover as an act of defiance.
Seems the message is pretty much the same, though, whether it’s Mo or a random Muslim.
Yes, my take below. Though I suppose it could also be Mohammed who is being forgiven, with the “this is not Islam which did this” message.
It IS ambiguous and, I suspect, deliberately so. My first reaction was of the magazine forgiving the murderers by purposely using Mohammed as a mouthpiece but, on reflection, I just don’t know any more.
The Guardian has also showed the cover. I suspect that the dam is slowly breaking and self-censorship is slowly fading.
Boris, in a Telegraph article yesterday, was totally honest as to the reason why UK papers haven’t, until now, published the cartoons:
“About 10 years ago, the whole Danish cartoon controversy blew up – and I remember distinctly concluding that I would never have published them in The Spectator, which I edited, not just because they were gratuitously inflammatory, but because I didn’t see how I could justify my decision to the widows and orphans of my staff, in the event of an attack on our offices (and I note that one of the German publications to use the Charlie Hebdo cartoons has just been fire-bombed).”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11338796/The-Islamists-want-war-but-it-would-be-fatal-if-we-fell-for-it.html
Most people probably will disagree with what he says in that article but it is well worth a read.
Absolutely agree with your last two paragraphs. Ideas left unexpressed are stillborn.
+1
It’s meant to be as ironic as possible by contrasting the taboo which results in so much violence against the religion’s own teaching that it is peaceful.
It interests me that the message is in the passive voice (like mistakes were made). If it were Mohammed apologizing, he could have said, “Je suis désolé” but it isn’t Mohammed talking. I interpret the “all is forgiven” as society not recognizing just how bad this is and the “Je suis Charlie” sign Mo holds as even Mo getting in on it.
Now that is an interesting and different possibility.
Another interpretation is the “all is forgiven” is from the Islamic side. We forgive you for offending us….
Or we say we condemn what happened so that everything will appear right (passive voice: all is forgiven) and we agree this was bad. But it’s all superficial. No one is addressing the real issues.
My impression was that Mo is forgiving the cartoonists, because a/ he is that kind of a prophet, & b/ allah or god or whatever it is called, won’t.
Why don’t they draw this ‘god’?!
As with Jesus & Mo last week, which ever way I look at it it seems just wrong for cartoonists to draw Mahomet/Mohammed (however you want to spell it) with this slogan. The slogan is not one that matches the ideology of Mahomet’s followers I will venture. I heard a lady who was wife or partner of one of those murdered say it was a war not against people but against an ideology. This strikes me as wrong – akin to the ‘war on terror’. Maybe guns kill people, maybe ideologies kill people, but it takes people behind the guns & ideologies to pull that trigger… people make both, they do not spontaneously exist.
By the way, has anyone read Voltaire’s play, Mahomet? The print version has a pic of Mo on the front cover!
Ooo that’s a good interpretation.
Why should Mo be drawn forgiving the cartoonists? It was in his name, and the name of god, they were slaughtered! You seem to be suggesting that Charlie Hebdo’s new editorial board is Muslim. I find that very disturbing.
Am I suggesting that? You are inferring that, I was not implying that! I was suggesting that the artist might (as we cannot be sure he is not being deliberately oblique) be representing Mohammed as being someone who would NOT have endorsed such violence, and is forgiving of representations of himself, or would have been. I nowhere said that the new editorial board might be followers of this so-called prophet. That would be absurd.
I think cynically the Charlie thing has become a bandwagon that is too much like ‘I’m Spartacus’ & rather cliched.
There are a lot of things to find disturbing about this affair…
I misread you. Please accept my apologies.
The drawing was made to be read in different ways, and I doubt (or refuse to believe?) that it was meant to be conciliatory to those with the mindset of the assassins.
In my view, depicting Mo with a “Je suis Charlie” sign will have, for the fanatics, approximately the soothing effect as having him hold a star of David.
Don’t be silly – there is nothing to forgive! I can take criticism anyway, unlike the murderers in this crime.
It looks to me as though Mo’ is saying that he, too, is Charlie Hebdo – if you kill Charlie, you kill Mohammed. Where is the difference? If you don’t recognize Charlie’s right to live, then Mohammed has no right either. They are both fictional in that Mo’s supposed followers can only imagine that he would be displeased by chalk sketches on sidewalks or cartoons on paper or electronic media and the religion itself is manmade. All is Forgiven means that CH forgives Mo’ for what his so-called friends have done and CH is moving on. Great response.
Turn the picture upside down, and it looks like Mohammed is a d&*%head….
If you turn the image upside down there are 3 penises. The largest one with eyes and a mouth and two smaller ones. Wait til everyone finds out! The media will feel foolish for finally caving in and showing it. Those who thought they were offended by the original image will have a second chance to get properly offended. You couldn’t make this up!
The meaning of a cover cartoon is usually clearer when one reads the textes in the paper (yes, it’s also something to read inside CH).
Le Point, a french daily paper, tells that the rear cover cartoon will show the djihadists arriving to the heaven and asking “where are the 70 virgins?”. The answer is: “whith the CH team, you losers”.
I read it as sarcasm with Mohammad doing the forgiving. But intentionally ambiguous.
I’m please that USA Today is publishing this one. I note that MSNBC, last night, did not show it. Rachel Maddow made a point of describing it verbally because she is not allowed to show it by her NBC overlords, shame be upon them.
How do we know it is Mo anyway? It does not say so specifically… besides, we don’t have any pics of him to know what he looked like.
Yes, we do!
/@
Nice link!
Ah, yes, given the input from the cartoonist, I think you’ve made an excellent point.
Ooops… wrong comment here…
I meant to say here that Mo sure looks Asian.
Everyone knows it is Mo. Or was Saudi Arabia involved in the attack? Don’t answer that.
The people caricatured in CH aren’t usually labeled but they have their signature clues: Mo wears this lumpy turban, Sarkozy looks like Dracula with little horns, Marine le Pen usually has a cigarette hanging out of her mouth and sometimes wears lederhosen. Readers of CH know exactly who the drawings depict.
This is the kind of insight I felt was missing. The casual viewer cannot really make sense of this kind of image. Interesting to speculate, as is being done here. It demands exploring the issue in depth which doesn’t hurt.
I think the “All is Forgiven” title was very sly on their part because it is (or seems to be) the opposite of what one would naturally have expected from the magazine. It’s hard to call a cartoon incendiary if the title invokes the generosity and mercy of forgiveness, of all things.
I’d say it was almost defiantly meek.
Yeah, you quislings. Find something to bitch about with this one.
I agree it’s a very clever chess move.
+ 2
CH earlier published a cover of a weeping Mohammed lamenting that so many of his followers were violent idiots. I think this is a similar idea. So I think this is Mohammed, sad and angry at what has been done in his name, expressing support for Charlie Hebdo and disapproval of the islamists.
Mohammed is forgiving CH, and those who mock him generally, and this is intended as a rebuke by CH to hard line Islam.
The True Muslim (TM) will say: what right have secular satirists to depict the infallible Prophet as forgiving CH’s mockery? For Charlie Hebdo to do this is blasphemy and mockery rolled into one. CH has verily declared war, and CNN and MSNBC are, predictably, taking the side of the religious fanatics. But, then, who is naïve enough to consider Corporate News as actually being news? On the one side there is free speech and on the other, bought speech.
Yes! I think you’re the only one who’s got this even remotely right. I am relieved and can go to bed now. Thank you Delphin! 😴
The Washington Post’s story about the new cover today includes a full color image of it. Good for them.
As for the meaning: who can claim to understand the satirical French mind? But my take is that it refers to all the “peaceful” Islamists who have condemned the attacks and covered themselves with the “Je Suis Charlie” slogan for self protection from retribution. “Charlie” continues to be merciless.
I have been a little surprised that so few people have referenced the 1978 attempted assassination of Hustler publisher Larry Flynt by a white supremacist who was upset (reportedly) by Hustler’s depictions of interracial sex. The attack on Flynt and the Charlie Hebdo incident are far from congruent, but Flynt produced some satirical stuff that would not be out of place in Charlie Hebdo, notably a piece about Jerry Falwell committing incest with his mother in an outhouse. Flynt was always in court fighting libel or obscenity charges and once famously yelled “fuck this court” in front of the Supremes. Back then, the First Amendment absolutists (myself included) explained that Larry Flynt is the price we pay for free speech. I still feel that way. One person’s expression of fill-in-the-blank-phobia is another person’s satire, just as one person’s erotica is another’s pornography.
“in front of the Supremes”
The judges or the recording artistes?
/@
AIUI the magazine likes to create absurd juxtapositions based on happenings in everyday life. Certainly Mohammed holding a “Je suis Charlie” sign is one such. Maybe the “all is forgiven” byline is meant to be another. IOW, they are not forgiving anyone but rather pointing out how absurd it would be to do so.
Come to think of it, the christian/mahometan god missed a trick – had it waited until the 20th/21st C to be incarnated/sending its last prophet, then it would have been a sinch demonstarting its religious/factual veracity. Oh, but that would mean it was not INVENTED Bronze Age nonsense… other ages are available.
cinch… heavy sigh!
I see it as sarcastic, lots of people have jumped on the Je Suis Charlie bandwagon, people who probably don’t have the track record prior to the attacks.. Even Mo is climbing aboard, he’s managed a token tear too..
Crocodile tears…
…& showing that the world is full of right Charlies!
I read it as sarcastic, too. The “Je Suis Charlie” meme shows solidarity with the victim, perhaps. But we cannot just show solidarity, forgive and forget, and move on.
“Je Suis Charlie” has the flavor of a saccharine “why can’t we all just get along?”. It is a distraction from addressing the uncomfortable truth that the beliefs and values that lead to jihadist terrorism are NOT held only by fringe groups. They are widespread. It is not enough to condemn jihadist violence, to forgive the terrorists and to move on. Islam needs thorough reform. Sharia Law over secular law; the condemnation, ostracism, and worse, of apostates; the subjugation of women. These are not acceptable in a civilized world. Terroristic violence is a fringe behavior that the vast majority of Muslims condemn. But the underlying values that enable it are not.
It’s also astonishing that the ambiguity of the cartoon has brought out at least one interpretation above that suggests that it’s Charlie Hebdo that needs to be forgiven here.
The more I think about it the more I think this is probably the intended meaning.
Agreed.
My take, too. Just surprised I had to scan thru 24 others before finding this interpretation.
Yes, a possibility: I recall reading a comment from CH a few days a go that the issue would be directed at all the “Je Suis Charlies” who had not taken the same risks or who had been disingenuous with their support.
/@
That was my first reaction, too. As if some people might think that a world full of “Je Suis Chalie”s makes everything OK again.
Or in other words–the way I feel about all the colored ribbons people wear for one cause or another…
You mean you don’t want to wear head to toe pink for breast cancer as you get ice water dunked over you for ALS while shielding your eyes with a supportive wrist band for AIDS? 😉
Kinky!
b&
There are disingenuous participants, for sure. But we shouldn’t misconstrue this. The value of Je Suis Charlie solidarity is exceedingly important. The insanity must be marginalized.
But, yes, we should point out and embarrass the “Je suis, but…” voices.
*“Je suis, mais …”!
You’re so corny.
ð½
b&
It occurs to me that regardless of what the cover means, the publication of 3 million copies means the islamists lose.
Not so fast. There is a sudden flush of defiance yes. But if the retreat starts right after, the triumph of Guardian-like cowardice, then they win.
The rallies are encouraging. They might be a distress crop.
The slogan will get old real fast when it is applied to political correctness. There are lots of folks out there having all flavors of opinion. Some we might agree with, and some that will horrify.
I’m somewhat cynically doubtful that this will be an enduring defence of free speech.
Larry Flynt has been mentioned, but he is pretty tame by current standards.
My own thought is the faster you drain the boil, the sooner the infection heals.
Why take “All is forgiven” at face value? It is deliberately ambiguous and I think that is the point.
I was confused and didn’t know what it meant. My wife read it as a very sarcastic “All is forgiven.” She has lived for a short time in France; I have not.
I saw the guy on the front cover as a generic Muslim. How could you tell the difference between the prophet Mohammad (piece be up him) and a regular Muslim called Mohammad? The prophet would probably be a bit shorter but there’s nothing to show his height on the front cover.
I have no idea how to interpret art so I’ll just go with the favourite thought I thoughted. The guy on the front cover is Mohammad (angry spiders be upon him) and he’s in agreement with everyone else supporting Charlie Hebdo because he’s dead and has nothing to say about living in the modern world so anyone can interpret his thoughts or meanings into whatever they want to comply with modern standards. It appears Luz is saying that Mohammad (pb&j) is on Charlie Hebdo’s side. As for everything being forgiven that goes to Charlie from Mohammad and from Charlie to the attackers.
From the guardian piece it seems the purpose is to say CH forgives the terrorists.
From the guardian article:
«Omer el-Hamdoon, president of the Muslim Association of Britain, said: “My reaction to the cartoon is disgust, “»
«Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan said the latest cartoon had added more salt to the wound.»
« Speaking on Today, he said causing offence “just for the purpose of offending” was not freedom of speech. »
Yes, it is. It’s mocking the stupid prohibition on depicting the fictional figurehead of an irrational ideology.
Merci.
/@
Agreed. Omer and Hassan can suck it.
« Speaking on Today, he said causing offence “just for the purpose of offending” was not freedom of speech. »
Not that the US supreme court speaks for the world, or that it’s always right, but it’s decision in the Larry Flynt case confirmed exactly that. Satire is protected speech even if it’s specified intent is nothing more than to offend.
PS. Kudos to Boris Johnson (the next Conservative PM… ).
You don’t need freedom for pleasant and agreeable speech.
I’ve argued this with some apparent Muslims on reddit. My thought is that it is in very bad taste to insult the weak, the sick and the downtrodden. Less so, to insult those who have guns and use them.
A lot of Muslims seem to think Islam is downtrodden (marginalized is the word they used). I can’t see that except as it is self-inflicted. How can you not be marginalized if you don’t engage other cultures as adults, and defend your ideas without getting pissy when someone disagrees?
Could be Muhammad forgiving his followers for killing the cartoonists. From what I understand the Qu’ran itself does not call for earthly retribution against blasphemy. Though the Hadiths, and Sharia do.
May also be forgiving those who weren’t Charlie before this attack. Those like Obama, and the French president who criticized them in 2011, and the 2 most important French Muslim groups who condemned this attack but sued them for that 2011 cover.
Just occurred to me it’s intent may be for people to read into it what it means to them. You’re forgiven for whatever you feel you did wrong where this is concerned. So any or all over the above suggestions, and more.
Sura 5:33: Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment
Reference.
Even Sura 5:32, which says murder is wrong, contains the exception for people spreading corruption. How much you want to bet that the overwhelming majority of Imams would count blasphemous pictures of Mohammed as corruption?
I’m sure they do because as I mentioned the Hadiths, and Sharia do. My point was that a moderate Muslims don’t have to cherry pick the Qu’ran in order to justify not punishing people for blasphemy.
I should have added a final sentence. …But you certainly can interpret the Qu’ran to justify it.
The Jewish and Christian scriptures contain equivalent hair raisers.
I take it as meaning Muhammad forgives the killers who tarnished the image of “True Islam.” Perhaps a charitable gesture from the magazine toward Muslims.
The ambiguity is unquestionably a key and intentional element.
But, I’m sure, no small part of it is the Charlie Hebdo family forgiving the killers of their loved ones.
b&
You’re right – the editors explain in the link at comment 47.
I agree with this news article I read that the cartoon is saying that Mohammed forgives Charlie for poking fun at him, and Mo is sorry that Charlie got killed for it.
That translation is probably best, at least it makes sense.
So now, how many lives at stake for printing this one? Seems the problem with all of this is that nothing is solved.
Would it be too much to hope that a few Islamists with a better grip on reality will see the deeper underlying message, which is that killing in Mohammed’s name hurts their prophet and their religion which the moderates say does not condone murder?
My interpretation is this:
charity is stronger than religion.
A truce of cosmic/comic proportions.
However it was intended to be interpreted, it will most certainly be interpreted as offensive by the censorship brigade.
Already has actually, I heard that several prominent muslim figures from Egypt, Jordan and others have deplored the unnecessary offensiveness of the cartoon…
Then, there’s this.
Naïve.
“radicalised not by drawings of the Prophet in Europe in 2006 or 2011, as it turns out, but by images of US torture in Iraq in 2004”
So why kill the cartoonists?
I’d guess that CH was itself critical of US torture …
/@
To me, the magazine cover was referring to the Muhammad myth (what else?) and alluding to the terrorist’s mistaken violence, plus the clash between what some muhammedanist sects do and what the religion claims to be about.
Generally the responses in Sweden has been to separate the religion from its extremism (as if all extremism has the same result), unfortunately including the muhammedanist officials, but less so than before. Many has now pointed out a way of non-violence but also criticism. (But no one has published the original Muhammad cartoons again, and some jumped on this cartoon instead.)
The worst I have seen was an attempt by a local “Islamic children and culture organization” to claim that the death shootings were “a lie” on a mosque’s blog. The mosque first publicly denied all responsibility, then apparently changed it to having some: they described the text as “a social experiment”. It became popular among anti-immigrant and pro-racist sites, naturally. [ http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/sajt-for-moske-spred-att-terrorattacken-var-en-logn/ ]
I would claim it is impossible for anyone to separate any religion from extremism. If any one member of a religion can claim the truth of their religion to contain a justification that is not agreed upon by all other members of that religion, then that religion is definition, inclusive of any ideology that members within it content it contains.
There is no escape from the ambiguity that encompasses all man made religions.
I think it’s two messages. First, that the magazine forgives Islam the actions of the murderers. Second, that civilized society moves on from horrific (real) offenses. France, and all of Europe, has to find a way to integrate a fast-growing Muslim population, because it isn’t going away. The cover seems to me an appeal to reason and civility over anger and vengeance. A lesson, perhaps, directed at Muslims in France.
Agreed. The cover shows perspective that draws upon what one might draw if they waited ten years to let events settle.
My take:
Various Islamic countries came out in condemnation of the shooting – and then proceeded to punish people for criticising Islam.
Egypt for example sentenced Karim al-Banna to three years in prison for being an atheist.
Saudi Arabia – well we already know about how it treated Raif Badawi.
Iran sentenced people to jail for making a video of themselves dancing to the song Happy.
So the new cover is a litmus test – if you’re still whining about Mohammed being on the cover after the killings, then no you aren’t really against the killings.
“well we already know about how it
treatedis torturing Raif Badawi”In this interview with BBC, Zineb El Rhazoui, a Charlie Hebdo columnist explains the cover:
The whole interview, including her comments on how she perceives Islam in France, is very refreshing.
Thanks for this.
Yes, thanks.
“Hamburger Morgenpost” (Germany) reprinted the cartoons.
An arsonist attack ensued.
I haven’t read the other responses, but when I first saw the cartoon my immediate reaction was that the character isn’t meant to represent Mohammed — at least, not THE Mohammed. It represents all the Muslims who cry for the victims, who stand for the freedom of speech and the right to satirize. The cartoon is of an ordinary Muslim who is saying that HE “is Charlie,” too.
And those Muslims — are forgiven. They’re absolved by the magazine, by the French people, and by the world. They are pardoned from the crime because they renounce the motivation.
I see it as encouraging Muslims to come and stand with Charlie — and discouraging those who would want to start an actual war by violently retaliating against Muslims in general. Both motives make sense.
Ah, I finally read the comments and Sameer’s quote at #40 has convinced me that no, it is supposed to be THE Mohammed. In which case the same message might well apply, accompanied by the not-true-Islam meme.
Also, I think the ‘defiant meekness’ I talked about under #19 is a big part of it. They posted a picture of Mohammed with the nicest possible words they could have written.
This ties in with my comment #45. Muslims representing Mohammad are making a better showing of themselves with their condemnation of this attack, and their support for the “I am Charlie” meme than they did following the Danish cartoon incident. So he (they) are forgiven.
The passive voice sticks with me on this one and that is why I interpret it as less genuine. If the magazine wanted to forgive, wouldn’t they use the active voice: nous vous pardonnons?
C’est possible, mais je ne sais pas.
An angle about the prohibition of Muhammad’s image seems contradictory to me.
I had read that Muhammad had wanted to discourage use of his imagery specifically b/c that could lead to idolatry of him, and he wanted the focus to instead be on Allah.
So what has happened is precisely what he did not want to happen. Depictions of his image have become extremely significant and distracting, haven’t they?
Not having read any info or anyone’s comments, my first association was this: Mohammed (or whatever his name is, guy on this picture) has had a tantrum. He started using violence against some other children in the playground. The guardians have taken him to the side and told him that he is not allowed to do that. At the end, everybody knows the obligatory “Now aay something nice and it will all be fine. Forgive each other and we can all go back inside.”
Except in this case, there is no way to forgive. His tantrum was fatal. There is no way to shake hands and say “it’s allright.”
I don’t know if anyone mentioned this but in 2006 issue where Charlie reprinted the the Danish cartoons their cover showed Mohammed weeping, and complaining that “It’s hard being loved by such jerks”.
This is likely forgiving Mohammad for that, now that he is Charlie, and so many of his followers are condemning this attack.
“All is forgiven” is sarcastic. I think they are saying that the “I am Charlie” bandwagon makes everyone feel they are doing something positive and encouraging free speech. But CH are saying even if free speech reigned and Mohammed himself were to join in and sing Kumbaya it wouldn’t make things right, or bring back the lives of those killed in the attack. People are joining a trendy movement and making that the biggest story and not remembering the lives of those that were killed and what a tragedy THAT is.
Well said!
The editors of Charlie Hebdo are forgiving the attackers! they say so themselves here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/charlie-hebdo-editor-explains-muhammad-cover-article-1.2075715
I think it’s disgusting.
No, not disgusting. I think it shows maturity and insight, to want to shift away from vengeance and say “let’s talk.” Those were the last words of Theo Van Gogh before they beheaded him. They represent the distinction between reason and fanaticism.
Putting Mohammed on the cover again means they’re not backing down on principles one damn inch.
Yes. Exactly.
And Charlie Hebdo is my kind of people. Je suis Charlie, yes, for the solidarity…but, the more I learn about them, the more I realize that they pretty much speak for me.
b&
“It is we who forgive, not Mohammed.” And the editors confirm that the figure is indeed Mohammed.
I understand your reaction and you are certainly entitled to it. I can’t judge CH for reacting and processing in their own way – of all the people in the world, I think they and the victim’s loved ones are best able to interpret the incident and respond in a way that honors their fallen.
Ah, thanks for that. However, it would be a mistake to forgive the murderers too readily. But I can see that there could be another message there, one of taking the high road and teaching by example. If Charlie forgives the murderers, this would surely move Mohammed to empathize with the injustice against Charlie. What sense is there to counter pens and quills with machine guns and bombs?
At the same time the artist said he isn’t ready to forgive. Perhaps this is the reason for selecting the passive voice?
Some years back I read a book about the Amish Schoolhouse Shootings (Lancaster County, PA, USA). One thing that has stuck with me is a statement by one of the parents to the effect that he had forgiven the killer just that morning. He paused; then went on to say that he would forgive the killer again tomorrow morning.
It’s not easy (for me, at any rate) but I think perhaps you heal your own trauma if you can forgive – even those without remorse.
The Masochism of the West! Even Charlie Hebdo isn’t free of it.
You don’t rightly forgive those without remorse.
You’ve got it all wrong. This is Charlie Weekly from New Orleans. He resembled his twin brother Demetri so much that, during the draft, the latter swapped two forms and slipped into law school while his bro was sent for two tours of duty in ‘Nam. Scarred with PTSD, Charlie has been carrying his name around his neck ever since.
But he’s forgiven his brother, who anyway was killed by a very angry mobster who ended up in jail for 10 years for the one crime he didn’t commit.
So there.
What a poetic cover. It is simple, yet intentional. Internally complex: it is the essence of introspective stimulation.
It should remain as an icon for the present state of affairs between secular human civilization and our species’ unrenounced ancient faiths.
The character on the cover could stand for complicated ideas, if you knew the magazine well enough. I don’t know if that is the case. The cartoonists know that great many new people will be exposed to it and it’s possible that it intentionally can be read in two ways: one for those who know the magazine and know what this character represents, and one for all the new eyes who have no extra context.
I read it as de-escalation, as a countering of polarization as in “we’re in this together”. We’re one side and it includes muslims. With the added twist that the muslims would have to tolerate depiction of a such a person on the cover, whether it’s seen as a generic muslim, arab or Mohammed himself. That suggests that it means “we’re in this together, IF you accept such freedom of speech”.
In other words: if you’re a muslim and you approve of this message, then it counts for you, too. You’re not to blame. You are okay with such a depiction however it is interpreted. If you’re not okay with it, then you obviously reject both the picture and the message, which would have included you (thus you’re not automatically forgiven).
Ooh. Subtle.
/@
It’s ambiguous, yes. I get two readings, one of genuine forgiveness for Islam, but also another, sarcastic one for those Muslims who cried crocodile tears …
I’m puzzled why anyone would find it plausible that Muhammad would have disapproved of the CH attack. He was a mass murderer himself, not just another brand of Jesus.
If I may give a french perspective (and because I think it can be difficult to understand this kind of satire for non-french reader), there are many layers in this drawing, as usual with CH.
This is indeed Mo shedding a tear for what was done in his name, and holding the “Je suis Charlie” sign as an apology. But doing that, he’s jumping a little too late on the “I am Charlie” bandwagon. It’s a sarcastic a nudge to all the people who are now defending CH, but didn’t say anything when they were fire bombed 2 years ago.
And then you have the journalists of CH saying “all is forgiven”. From my point of view, Aneris #50 has the best interpretation. The overall meaning is yes, they forgive if you accept this drawing. But they are not backing down an inch, forgiveness is not automatically granted. If you can’t tolerate a caricature and throw the journal aside, the drawing turns upside down and you’ll see Mo is made to look like a giant dick. That’s their way to flip their middle finger at you if you reject the caricature of Mo and the message in the cartoon.
I think they are forgiving those journalists and politicians who left Charlie Hebdo on their own to face the threat of murder for the past decade but have now suddenly decided free speech is a good thing after all.
… After all, we are all Charlie now …
Even You-know-who
Voldemort?
/@
Consistent with what others have expressed, I see the cartoon as a gesture of rapprochement between Charley Hebdo and, if not all of moderate Islam, then certainly those Muslims who have denounced the attacks. (In this instance, at least, there was prompt and widespread denunciation of the attacks throughout the Muslim world, including by religious leaders).
I think the character depicted was drawn as recognizably Mohammed, without being expressly labeled as such, to imbue it with a universality and to avoid its being identified with any particular individual, denomination, or sect.
There is a studied ambiguity in the use of the passive “all is forgiven,” meant, I think, to leave open which side is forgiving which. The message seems to be that both are forgiving the other: Charley Hebdo being absolved for having been, at times, unnecessarily offensive, and for having given insult for insult’s sake; the Muslim community, for having taken unnecessary offense, in instances where no insult was intended or where such insult (or harsh criticism, at least) was richly deserved.
I also think it key that the Mohammed character is not merely condemning the attacks and/or sympathizing with victims, but wearing the T-shirt — the “Je suis Charley Hebdo” slogan standing as support for the free-speech right to give offense during political discourse without fear of violent retribution.
The victims of tragedy or grave personal loss often get carried through their trauma by expressions of such fellow feeling and human warmth. They promote the healing process.
But such feelings of warmth, compassion, and fellowship hardly conduce to the mordant satire that Charley Hebdo claims as its métier. If the magazine is to continue in its role as the clown prince of radical journalism (which seems not guaranteed), I’d look for a prompt return to its funked-out form.
It’s deliberately ambiguous, but I think the ‘everything is forgiven’ is sarcasm. Turn the picture upside down and Mo is still a dick.
Indeed! But forgiven by the grace of CH.
The meaning is like a logical puzzle — the solutions that do not fit with all the facets of the problem must be rejected. In this light, it seems that the intended meaning is that Mohammed (the magazine itself announced that it is a drawing of him) no longer has any grudge against the newspaper, because he deplores so much (evidenced by his tear) what was done. In other words, although he didn’t like the magazine before, NOW it’s all forgiven.
Could the obvious and intentional ambiguity be there to get people to think and ponder for a change?!
I did wonder about that. If so, it seems to have worked.
I like your last sentence about “see racism and bigotry everywhere”. Especially apparently in the heads and the mouths of other liberal/left white people like themselves. But not so much murderous cops, blackface-loving frat boys, the virulent racial verbal harassers. The really bad stuff that hurts people in our countries every day. And that isn’t just a matter of some kind of supposed antiracist ideological purity.
This cover cartoon? The more I think about it the more confused I get. Whether it’s the magazine people forgiving the killers (holy fuck!) or Mohammed forgiving of the cartoonists, it’s still absolutely creepy. Maybe it’s some generic kind of ‘forgiveness’, a sort of longing for peace?
Mohammed is forgiving the killers, teared up over there actions, and is promoting free speach in the name of islam by holding up the sign.
or
Mohammed is forgiving Charlie Hebdo, and seems to have changed his mind by holding up the “Je suis Charlie” sign, now promoting free speach in the name of islam,teared up over the killings.
i intepret it as something against worldwide rage against the muslims as a community. Meaning, a few brainless muslims did shoot the cartoonist but that does not blame theie entire community. Something like that…. remember the j.k rowling tweet?
Reblogged this on Kruti Mehta.