If you believed that Charlie hebdo magazine was a champion of 'free speech'; no figure or religion was too big to satirize... think again.
Not many people know that Charlie Hebdo, and its 'free speech martyrs', did not tolerate any Jewish satire. Maurice Sine, a cartoonist was sacked in 2009 for covering the financial reasons behind the alleged conversion of Nicholas Sarkozy's son to Judaism, and his relationship with a jewess.
They say that Charlie Hebdo is championing freedom of speech when our prophets are abused (Prophet Isa; as; was also mocked severally), but it is racist and anti-semitic when jewish financial incentives; in exchange for conversion; are implied or any jewish innuendo is attempted.
Hypocrisy is not easy to conceal. It was NEVER about free speech. It was always about maligning Religion other than Judaism, with the most racist form of mudslinging that could never have been accepted for use on jews. It was about deliberate provocation and mockery of muslims who today, are carrying placards in solidarity with the mockers of their Prophet (saw).


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

Sad that extremists on all sides won't allow peace to prevail.

Actually op it is freedom of expression on their own terms, they practice, which in fact bothers on racism etc! Nevertheless, when you live in France you are bounded by their laws, what the attackers succeeded in doing is helping anti - muslims extremists have more case to pressure Muslims living in Europe. There is this thread Thaba posted on how muslims should react when the prophet pbuh is insulted, I try searching for it, so we can all re-learn the lessons.

You guys are the scholars in the house.
Do you have any narrated ahadith about how the sahaba would react when the Prophet (saw) was insulted and maligned, and whether he approved of such reactions. I believe that would present superior evidence to mere postulations and logical deductions by contemporary scholars. After all, the prophet (saw) would not approve a wrong action.

Op, I understand what you meant. It's indeed freedom of xpression in their own terms. Sincerely speaking, it was about mocking prophet and muslims whether they conceal that or not.

Fact is, it's still not appropriate to carry out such act. It hurts muslims more especially french muslims. Not only that. Mainstream media already talking about placing cops in mosques in ny like they used to do. I hope you know what that means. Survellance, phone and internet tapping will make come back. And i know how crazy that can be. I was once victim of that for good 4 yrs.

Also, it is avenue for someone like usermane to start runing his mouth. He thinks one way. This reminds me of a friend friend of mine currently sitting in jail over nazi-jewish rants. We'd thought he was xpressing himself. Alas! he was arrested and jailed for "hate crime". At least, if not for govt involvement he would have been hacked to death by 'holy' jewish guys.

No, prophet muhammad (Allah's blessing and peace upon him and his houseld) would not have ordered killing of Charlie Hebdo. Instead, dialogue would prevailed. Anyways, Tariq Ramadan pretty much summed it all. The printing of cartoon was about making money off stupid jokes. I wonder in what position he would meet Allah.

Lastly, both Cartoonist and his killers are dead and in the hands of their Lord. Taking any action against muslims would be unjust over what we have no control. I am sure though that charlie isnt going to meet his Lord comfortably in his grave. Thats just too bad.

Why would he do this in Rabi-Awwal?. One need insuitive understanding to figure out he did what he did intentionally. Sleeping dogs lying jejely, na him wake am up for no reason. My humble submmision. Peace

https://www.nairaland.com/2083586/stop-asking-muslims-condemn-terrorism

Initially though, when this news of attacks first broke out, i thought of my subject of ilm akhir zaman. Recently, France voted YES for Palestinian statehood. Just less than a week ago, same French president, as revealed by RT, seems to appeal to West to "lift sanctions against Russia". Zionists dont like this.

They are damn good at orchestrating schemes. They have their boys and son of a gun to sacrifice. All these dramas on tv dont move me a bit. I strongly believe that attacks on cartoonist was a scheme to shut up France to back down from its claims. You may disagree with me though.

But Quran teaches us a lot and we really need to look into it. It speaks in 'pregnant' and plain forms about past, present and future events. I am not fooled by dust or smoke screen they put out there on tv.

Just pay a little attention to Hollande, see if he goes further on his mission to back Palestinian statehood or relieving Russia of it sanctions. Recent attacks in my opinion is to distract him and blame muslims as always. We are the scapegoats. The only people who dont understand are muslims. We are so dump...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-5Q7-q4vFQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ57E3iuzpc

This was uploaded back in December

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA0HoIkT4kQ

Empiree:
Initially though, when this news of attacks first broke out, i thought of my subject of ilm akhir zaman. Recently, France voted YES for Palestinian statehood. Just less than a week ago, same French president, as revealed by RT, seems to appeal to West to "lift sanctions against Russia". Zionists dont like this.

They are damn good at orchestrating schemes. They have their boys and son of a gun to sacrifice. All these dramas on tv dont move me a bit. I strongly believe that attacks on cartoonist was a scheme to shut up France to back down from its claims. You may disagree with me though.

But Quran teaches us a lot and we really need to look into it. It speaks in 'pregnant' and plain forms about past, present and future events. I am not fooled by dust or smoke screen they put out there on tv.

Just pay a little attention to Hollande, see if he goes further on his mission to back Palestinian statehood or relieving Russia of it sanctions. Recent attacks in my opinion is to distract him and blame muslims as always. We are the scapegoats. The only people who dont understand are muslims. We are so dump...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-5Q7-q4vFQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ57E3iuzpc

This was uploaded back in December

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA0HoIkT4kQ

Thanks for that. It is ignorance to judge Islam by the western orchestrated political-social hiccups. There's an agenda. There's no doubt.

Empiree, I see you you and this your "ilm akhir zaman". Sheik Imran talking there

Abuamam:

Do you have any narrated ahadith about how the sahaba would react when the Prophet (saw) was insulted and maligned, and whether he approved of such reactions. I believe that would present superior evidence to mere postulations and logical deductions by contemporary scholars. After all, the prophet (saw) would not approve a wrong action.

While it is natural for a man to react when his master, teacher, parents et al is being abused, sahaba are no different. Yet, Qur'an and the holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) used to teach them. These teachings are recorded which should be the watch-tower of every muslims.

QUR'AN TALKS
"And if you invite them to guidance, they hear not; and thou seest them looking towards thee, yet they see not. Hold fast to forgiveness and enjoin goodness and turn away from the ignorant." ~Qur'an 7:198-199

"Bear patiently what they say." ~Qur'an 20:130 and 50:39

"Obey not the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and disregard their hurtful talk." ~Qur'an 33:48

You will certainly hear much abuse from the followers of previous books and from the idol-worshipping people. And if you are patient and keep your duty --this is surely a matter of great resolution." ~Quran3:186

"Many of the followers of previous books wish that they could turn you back into disbelievers after you have believed, but you should pardon and forgive." Quran 2:109


Some Incidents During Prophet's Lifetime
1. A man called Suhail ibn Amar had a voice suited to oratory, and used to employ this talent in making speeches against the Holy
Prophet (peace be upon him and his household). He was captured by the Muslims at the battle of Badr and brought before the Holy Prophet. A Muslim suggested that some of Suhail's teeth should be knocked out to disable him from speaking well. The Holy Prophet replied:
"If I disfigure any of his limbs, God will disfigure mine in retribution".

2. Once when the Holy Prophet divided some wealth among his followers, one man accused him to his face of being unfair and told him: "Fear God, O Muhammad".
After the man had left, the following
conversation took place between Khalid ibn Walid and the Holy Prophet, as recorded in Sahih Bukhari:
Khalid: "Shall I strike off his neck?"

Holy Prophet: "No, perhaps he is a man who says prayers."

Khalid: "There are many people who pray, but what they say is not what is in their hearts."

Holy Prophet: "I have not been commanded by God to cut open people's chests to see what is inside their hearts."
Ref: Book: al-Maghazi, ch. 63.

3. Once there were four men who spread an accusation of immorality against the Holy Prophet's wife Aisha. Their allegation was
ultimately proved to be false because they failed to back it up with any witnesses. One of the four men, called Mistah, used to receive financial assistance from Abu Bakr,
Aisha's father. After this incident, Abu Bakr swore never again to help Mistah. The following verse was revealed to the Holy Prophet on this occasion:

"Let not the possessors of grace and means among you swear against giving to the near relatives and the poor and those who had to flee in God's way. Pardon and overlook. Do you not love that God should forgive you?" Quran 24:22

Hearing this, Abu Bakr exclaimed:
"Indeed, I certainly love that God should forgive me".
Sahih al-Bukhari, Book: 'Testimony', ch. 15.

He then resumed providing assistance to Mistah, as before.

4. Imam al-Bukhari also documents:
"The Messenger of Allah and his Companions used to forgive the idolators and the followers of previous books, as Allah had commanded them, and they used to show patience on hearing hurtful words."

Book: Commentary on the Quran, ch. 16 under Sura 3.

To be continue, in sha Allah...

^lol, im looking forward to his opinion on this but he may have no time for those fools anyway.

Sometimes i just have to go with popular opinion to avoid backlash. When i first posted my opinion on sister's website, folks were asking 'what do mean?'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_IAv81qMAo

AlBaqir:


While it is natural for a man to react when his master, teacher, parents et al is being abused, sahaba are no different. Yet, Qur'an and the holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) used to teach them. These teachings are recorded which should be the watch-tower of every muslims.

QUR'AN TALKS
"And if you invite them to guidance, they hear not; and thou seest them looking towards thee, yet they see not. Hold fast to forgiveness and enjoin goodness and turn away from the ignorant." ~Qur'an 7:198-199

"Bear patiently what they say." ~Qur'an 20:130 and 50:39

"Obey not the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and disregard their hurtful talk." ~Qur'an 33:48

You will certainly hear much abuse from the followers of previous books and from the idol-worshipping people. And if you are patient and keep your duty --this is surely a matter of great resolution." ~Quran3:186

"Many of the followers of previous books wish that they could turn you back into disbelievers after you have believed, but you should pardon and forgive." Quran 2:109


Some Incidents During Prophet's Lifetime
1. A man called Suhail ibn Amar had a voice suited to oratory, and used to employ this talent in making speeches against the Holy
Prophet (peace be upon him and his household). He was captured by the Muslims at the battle of Badr and brought before the Holy Prophet. A Muslim suggested that some of Suhail's teeth should be knocked out to disable him from speaking well. The Holy Prophet replied:
"If I disfigure any of his limbs, God will disfigure mine in retribution".

2. Once when the Holy Prophet divided some wealth among his followers, one man accused him to his face of being unfair and told him: "Fear God, O Muhammad".
After the man had left, the following
conversation took place between Khalid ibn Walid and the Holy Prophet, as recorded in Sahih Bukhari:
Khalid: "Shall I strike off his neck?"

Holy Prophet: "No, perhaps he is a man who says prayers."

Khalid: "There are many people who pray, but what they say is not what is in their hearts."

Holy Prophet: "I have not been commanded by God to cut open people's chests to see what is inside their hearts."
Ref: Book: al-Maghazi, ch. 63.

3. Once there were four men who spread an accusation of immorality against the Holy Prophet's wife Aisha. Their allegation was
ultimately proved to be false because they failed to back it up with any witnesses. One of the four men, called Mistah, used to receive financial assistance from Abu Bakr,
Aisha's father. After this incident, Abu Bakr swore never again to help Mistah. The following verse was revealed to the Holy Prophet on this occasion:

"Let not the possessors of grace and means among you swear against giving to the near relatives and the poor and those who had to flee in God's way. Pardon and overlook. Do you not love that God should forgive you?" Quran 24:22

Hearing this, Abu Bakr exclaimed:
"Indeed, I certainly love that God should forgive me".
Sahih al-Bukhari, Book: 'Testimony', ch. 15.

He then resumed providing assistance to Mistah, as before.

4. Imam al-Bukhari also documents:
"The Messenger of Allah and his Companions used to forgive the idolators and the followers of previous books, as Allah had commanded them, and they used to show patience on hearing hurtful words."

Book: Commentary on the Quran, ch. 16 under Sura 3.

To be continue, in sha Allah...

Yes bro. Please continue. And please stick to those specific ahadith involving abuse of the prophet (saw) himself, not his wives or companions or non direct statements like "fear Allah o prophet of Allah". Just so as not to clutter up the page and waste your precious time.
May Allah reward those who revive knowledge.

No one who loves Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) would commit terrorist acts. If you love someone, would you not try to emulate them? The Prophet of Islam (SAW) cautioned us "Do not be angry". I would feel sad if you insulted Rasulullah (SAW) but I would not let it last long because this is something that has happened from the moment he was called to deliver the message. But was there any 1 event in history where he took arms because he was mocked, ridiculed or insulted?

Please, there are better ways, Islamic ways, of expressing our grievances and demonstration/holding placards is NOT even one of them not to talk of destruction of lives and property.

Any and every muslim who understands Islam should condemn this event and not try to "claim ownership" of it. These young men are mostly being used and have no idea that they are being used. There is no justification for these actions, muslims should STOP copying non Islamic acts.

The first suicide bombers/plane hijackers were Jews.
We have our own Islamic ways (Copy the Prophet Mohammed, (SAW) and be patient. We are not patient for the most part anymore. We are watching and allowing some loonies to put us ll in unnecessary danger.
@Empiree, your point is quite interesting. I watched a movie, "CleanSkin" and I was so thankful for the producers. I wish more of the misled muslim youths would watch it. It was really pitiful.

There was also terrorist attack by a white man in Colorado, US this week. But media reluctant.
http://news.yahoo.com/terror-attack-america-week-why-wasnt-news-193453101.html

The first victim, Ahmed Merabat, was purged from
the headlines.
prelive.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/01/muslims-france-charlie-hebdo-me-201518121649556792.html


Ahmed,a policeman charged with protecting Charlie hebdo was deliberately left out of the entire narrative of the incident! Once again underscoring the deapth to which the media will go in promoting "muslims" who do bad while ignoring those who fought against such evil! Reminding of our resident hypocrite who went as far as denying muslims fighting ISIL are actually muslims, without telling us what religion they profess!

FINALLY, A BREATH OF FRESH AIR. THANK YOU AL JAZEERA.
(I couldn't copy both the article and the link at the same time on my browser, so I copied only the article; sorry.)


As journalists worldwide reacted with universal revulsion at the massacre of some of their own by Islamic jihadists in Paris, Al Jazeera English editor and executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr sent out a staff-wide e-mail.

“Please accept this note in the spirit it is intended — to make our coverage the best it can be,” the London-based Khadr wrote Thursday, in the first of a series of internal e-mails leaked to National Review Online. “We are Al Jazeera!”

Below was a list of “suggestions” for how anchors and correspondents at the Qatar-based news outlet should cover Wednesday’s slaughter at the Charlie Hebdo office (the full e-mails can be found below).

Khadr urged his employees to ask if this was “really an attack on ‘free speech,’” discuss whether “I Am Charlie” is an “alienating slogan,” caution viewers against “making this a free speech aka ‘European Values’ under attack binary [sic],” and portray the attack as “a clash of extremist fringes.”

“Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile,” Khadr wrote. “Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response — however illegitimate — is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.”

His denunciation of Charlie Hebdo’s publication of cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed didn’t sit well with some Al Jazeera English employees.

Hours later, U.S.-based correspondent Tom Ackerman sent an email quoting a paragraph from a January 7 blog post by Ross Douthat. The New York Times’ Douthat (film critic for National Review) argued that cartoons like the ones that drove the radical Islamists to murder must be published “because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.”

That precipitated an angry backlash from the network’s Qatar-based correspondents, revealing in the process a deep cultural rift at a network at times accused of overt anti-Western bias.

“I guess if you insult 1.5 billion people chances are one or two of them will kill you,” wrote Mohamed Vall Salem, who reported for Al Jazeera’s Arab-language channel before joining its English wing in 2006. “And I guess if you encourage people to go on insulting 1.5 billion people about their most sacred icons then you just want more killings because as I said in 1.5 billion there will remain some fools who don’t abide by the laws or know about free speech” [sic].

“What Charlie Hebdo did was not free speech it was an abuse of free speech in my opinion, go back to the cartoons and have a look at them!” Salem later wrote. “It’ snot [sic] about what the drawing said, it was about how they said it. I condemn those heinous killings, but I’M NOT CHARLIE.”

That prompted BBC alumna Jacky Rowland — now Al Jazeera English’s senior correspondent in Paris — to email a “polite reminder” to her colleague: “#journalismsinotacrime.”

But her response triggered a furious reaction from another of the network’s Arab correspondents. “First I condemn the brutal killing,” wrote Omar Al Saleh, a “roving reporter” currently on assignment in Yemen. “But I AM NOT CHARLIE.”

“JOURNALISM IS NOT A CRIME [but] INSULTISM IS NOT JOURNALISM,” he raged. “AND NOT DOING JOURNALISM PROPERLY IS A CRIME.”

The heated back-and-forth reflects Al Jazeera English’s precarious balance between its Arab center of gravity and the Western correspondents it employs. After being accused for years of fomenting anti-Western sentiment, most damningly by some of its own anchors, the network made a concerted effort to rebrand, hiring a slew of American and European reporters — especially those who had trouble getting jobs in their own domestic markets.

As these internal e-mails show, that rebranding seemAs journalists worldwide reacted with universal revulsion at the massacre of some of their own by Islamic jihadists in Paris, Al Jazeera English editor and executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr sent out a staff-wide e-mail.

“Please accept this note in the spirit it is intended — to make our coverage the best it can be,” the London-based Khadr wrote Thursday, in the first of a series of internal e-mails leaked to National Review Online. “We are Al Jazeera!”

Below was a list of “suggestions” for how anchors and correspondents at the Qatar-based news outlet should cover Wednesday’s slaughter at the Charlie Hebdo office (the full e-mails can be found below).

Khadr urged his employees to ask if this was “really an attack on ‘free speech,’” discuss whether “I Am Charlie” is an “alienating slogan,” caution viewers against “making this a free speech aka ‘European Values’ under attack binary [sic],” and portray the attack as “a clash of extremist fringes.”

“Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile,” Khadr wrote. “Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response — however illegitimate — is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.”

His denunciation of Charlie Hebdo’s publication of cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed didn’t sit well with some Al Jazeera English employees.

Hours later, U.S.-based correspondent Tom Ackerman sent an email quoting a paragraph from a January 7 blog post by Ross Douthat. The New York Times’ Douthat (film critic for National Review) argued that cartoons like the ones that drove the radical Islamists to murder must be published “because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.”

That precipitated an angry backlash from the network’s Qatar-based correspondents, revealing in the process a deep cultural rift at a network at times accused of overt anti-Western bias.

“I guess if you insult 1.5 billion people chances are one or two of them will kill you,” wrote Mohamed Vall Salem, who reported for Al Jazeera’s Arab-language channel before joining its English wing in 2006. “And I guess if you encourage people to go on insulting 1.5 billion people about their most sacred icons then you just want more killings because as I said in 1.5 billion there will remain some fools who don’t abide by the laws or know about free speech” [sic].

“What Charlie Hebdo did was not free speech it was an abuse of free speech in my opinion, go back to the cartoons and have a look at them!” Salem later wrote. “It’ snot [sic] about what the drawing said, it was about how they said it. I condemn those heinous killings, but I’M NOT CHARLIE.”

That prompted BBC alumna Jacky Rowland — now Al Jazeera English’s senior correspondent in Paris — to email a “polite reminder” to her colleague: “#journalismsinotacrime.”

But her response triggered a furious reaction from another of the network’s Arab correspondents. “First I condemn the brutal killing,” wrote Omar Al Saleh, a “roving reporter” currently on assignment in Yemen. “But I AM NOT CHARLIE.”

“JOURNALISM IS NOT A CRIME [but] INSULTISM IS NOT JOURNALISM,” he raged. “AND NOT DOING JOURNALISM PROPERLY IS A CRIME.”

The heated back-and-forth reflects Al Jazeera English’s precarious balance between its Arab center of gravity and the Western correspondents it employs. After being accused for years of fomenting anti-Western sentiment, most damningly by some of its own anchors, the network made a concerted effort to rebrand, hiring a slew of American and European reporters — especially those who had trouble getting jobs in their own domestic markets.
As journalists worldwide reacted with universal revulsion at the massacre of some of their own by Islamic jihadists in Paris, Al Jazeera English editor and executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr sent out a staff-wide e-mail.

“Please accept this note in the spirit it is intended — to make our coverage the best it can be,” the London-based Khadr wrote Thursday, in the first of a series of internal e-mails leaked to National Review Online. “We are Al Jazeera!”

Below was a list of “suggestions” for how anchors and correspondents at the Qatar-based news outlet should cover Wednesday’s slaughter at the Charlie Hebdo office (the full e-mails can be found below).

Khadr urged his employees to ask if this was “really an attack on ‘free speech,’” discuss whether “I Am Charlie” is an “alienating slogan,” caution viewers against “making this a free speech aka ‘European Values’ under attack binary [sic],” and portray the attack as “a clash of extremist fringes.”

“Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile,” Khadr wrote. “Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response — however illegitimate — is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.”

His denunciation of Charlie Hebdo’s publication of cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed didn’t sit well with some Al Jazeera English employees.

Hours later, U.S.-based correspondent Tom Ackerman sent an email quoting a paragraph from a January 7 blog post by Ross Douthat. The New York Times’ Douthat (film critic for National Review) argued that cartoons like the ones that drove the radical Islamists to murder must be published “because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.”

That precipitated an angry backlash from the network’s Qatar-based correspondents, revealing in the process a deep cultural rift at a network at times accused of overt anti-Western bias.

“I guess if you insult 1.5 billion people chances are one or two of them will kill you,” wrote Mohamed Vall Salem, who reported for Al Jazeera’s Arab-language channel before joining its English wing in 2006. “And I guess if you encourage people to go on insulting 1.5 billion people about their most sacred icons then you just want more killings because as I said in 1.5 billion there will remain some fools who don’t abide by the laws or know about free speech” [sic].

“What Charlie Hebdo did was not free speech it was an abuse of free speech in my opinion, go back to the cartoons and have a look at them!” Salem later wrote. “It’ snot [sic] about what the drawing said, it was about how they said it. I condemn those heinous killings, but I’M NOT CHARLIE.”

That prompted BBC alumna Jacky Rowland — now Al Jazeera English’s senior correspondent in Paris — to email a “polite reminder” to her colleague: “#journalismsinotacrime.”

But her response triggered a furious reaction from another of the network’s Arab correspondents. “First I condemn the brutal killing,” wrote Omar Al Saleh, a “roving reporter” currently on assignment in Yemen. “But I AM NOT CHARLIE.”

“JOURNALISM IS NOT A CRIME [but] INSULTISM IS NOT JOURNALISM,” he raged. “AND NOT DOING JOURNALISM PROPERLY IS A CRIME.”

The heated back-and-forth reflects Al Jazeera English’s precarious balance between its Arab center of gravity and the Western correspondents it employs. After being accused for years of fomenting anti-Western sentiment, most damningly by some of its own anchors, the network made a concerted effort to rebrand, hiring a slew of American and European reporters — especially those who had trouble getting jobs in their own domestic markets.

As these internal e-mails show, that rebranding seems to have taken a toll on the network’s newsroom cohesion — particularly regarding stories like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, which break so sharply on cultural fault lines.

(Full exchange after the jump.)

Executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr:

Thursday, January 08, 2015
Subject: AJ coverage of events in Paris

Dear Editorial colleagues,

Please accept this note in the spirit it is intended – to make our coverage the best that it can be …. We are Al Jazeera!!!!

My suggestion is that we question and raise the following points in our coverage – studio/anchors/guests/correspondents:

This was a targeted attack, not a broad attack on the french population a la Twin towers or 7/7 style. So who was this attack against? The whole of France/EU society? Or specifically this magazine. The difference lies in how this is reported not in how terrible the act is obviously – murder is murder either way… but poses a narrower question of the “why”? attack on french society and values? Only if you consider CH’s racist caricatures to be the best of European intellectual production (total whitewash on that at the moment)

Was this really an attack on “Free speech”? Who is attacking free speech here exactly? Does an attack by 2-3 guys on a controversial magazine equate to a civilizational attack on European values..? Really?

“I am Charlie” as an alienating slogan – with us or against us type of statement – one can be anti-CH’s racism and ALSO against murdering people(!) (obvious I know but worth stating)

Also worth stating that we still don’t know much about the motivations of the attackers outside of the few words overheard on the video. Yes, clearly it was a “punishment” for the cartoons, but it didn’t take them 8/9 years to prep this attack (2006 was Danish/CH publication) – this is perhaps a response to something more immediate…French action against ISIL…? Mali? Libya? CH just the target ie focus of the attack..?

Danger in making this a free speech aka “European Values” under attack binary is that it once again constructs European identity in opposition to Islam (sacred depictions) and cements the notion of a European identity under threat from an Islamic retrograde culture of which the attackers are merely the violent tip of the iceberg (see the seeping of Far Right discourse into french normalcy with Houellebecque’s novel for example)

The key is to look at the biographies of these guys – contrary to conventional wisdom, they were radicalised by images of Abu Ghraib not by images of the Prophet Mohammed

You don’t actually stick it to the terrorists by insulting the majority of Muslims by reproducing more cartoons – you actually entrench the very animosity and divisions these guys seek to sow.

This is a clash of extremist fringes…

I suggest a re-read of the Time magazine article back from 2011 and I have selected the most poignant/important excerpt….

http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/?iid=gs-article-mostpop1http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/?iid=gs-article-mostpop1

It’s unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims—and provoke hysteria among extremists.

Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.

Kind regards


Salah-Aldeen Khadr
​Executive Producer
Al Jazeera English

U.S.-based correspondent Tom Ackerman:

Friday, January 9, 2015
Subjec

Is Charlie really innocent?

"The magazine depicted the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in a sexual party. Illustrations such as this have been cited as evidence of Charlie Hebdo’s willingness to offend everyone.

But in recent years the magazine has gone specifically for racist and Islamophobic provocations, and its numerous anti- Islam images have been inventively perverse, featuring hook-nosed Arabs, bullet-ridden Korans, variations on the theme of sodomy, and mockery of the victims of a massacre.

It is not always easy to see the difference between a certain witty dissent from religion and a bullyingly racist agenda, but it is necessary to try.

Even Voltaire, a hero to many who extol free speech, got it wrong. His sparkling and courageous anti-clericalism can be a joy to read, but he was also a committed anti- Semite, whose criticisms of Judaism were accompanied by calumnies about the innate character of Jews."

-The New Yorker

Empiree:
Initially though, when this news of attacks first broke out, i thought of my subject of ilm akhir zaman. Recently, France voted YES for Palestinian statehood. Just less than a week ago, same French president, as revealed by RT, seems to appeal to West to "lift sanctions against Russia". Zionists dont like this.

They are damn good at orchestrating schemes. They have their boys and son of a gun to sacrifice. All these dramas on tv dont move me a bit. I strongly believe that attacks on cartoonist was a scheme to shut up France to back down from its claims. You may disagree with me though.

But Quran teaches us a lot and we really need to look into it. It speaks in 'pregnant' and plain forms about past, present and future events. I am not fooled by dust or smoke screen they put out there on tv.

Just pay a little attention to Hollande, see if he goes further on his mission to back Palestinian statehood or relieving Russia of it sanctions. Recent attacks in my opinion is to distract him and blame muslims as always. We are the scapegoats. The only people who dont understand are muslims. We are so dump...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-5Q7-q4vFQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ57E3iuzpc

This was uploaded back in December

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA0HoIkT4kQ

man it seems lyk u knw wen to read within d lines... ur on point abeg if only we can find a way to tame all this khawarij cuz diz guys r makin it hard for pple to experienc d peace tht is in islam.

The Herald deeply regretted the upset the image had caused, but felt – not least because the cartoonist lacked any intent and that actual photographs influenced the setting and physical depiction of the character in the cartoon – that no racial vilification had occurred.

However, this newspaper accepts that this position was too simplistic and ignored the use of religious symbols.

The Herald now appreciates that, in using the Star of David and the kippah in the cartoon, the newspaper invoked an inappropriate element of religion, rather than nationhood, and made a serious error of judgment.

It was wrong to publish the cartoon in its original form.

We apologise unreservedly for this lapse, and the anguish and distress that has been caused----

The Sydney Herald