Why do they have to be trying to achieve anything? Why can you not just accept that certain people both understand and explain their ideas via this method of expression?

The magazine isn't something that is rammed down everybody's throats, it isn't compulsory and it isn't free. What the author was more than likely trying to achieve, is a drawing that reflects a certain sectors emotions. A drawing that was meant to be debated and discussed, but most definitely not a drawing that would be used as an excuse for barbaric terrorism.
-------
It doesn't bother me what they do as I'm not a Muslim and I'm all for free speech but when you know that over a billion people hold what the Qu'ran says as sacred if consciously do something that is gonna offend then you have to expect backlash.

It seems to me that a lot of people here are under the assumption Charlie Hebdo did not publish cartoons about anything other than extreme muslims.

Charlie Hebdo published cartoons about any religion, group of people etc, they thought were in the wrong, be it Christians, the Vatican, Jewish people, or indeed muslims.

Nor did they publish cartoons about the Prophet to just ridicule or hurt muslims. But it is a sad fact that a lot of the worst atrocities in this world are committed by terrorists who use the Prophet as "excuse". That is why Charlie Hebdo published those cartoons.

Finally, I see a lot of people here saying it is not worth showing cartoons like that because of the consequences.

Well, in Voltaire's words: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

I guess that answers that question then.....

None of the other mentioned religions have it written in scripture that is a sin to depict their Prophet, people are acting like its a revolutionary act to draw a satirical picture of Muhammad when in reality these people should be allowed to believe what they want. Criticism isn't that same as desecrating something that so many hold sacred, people criticize Islam all the time.

Godleebarnes

The prohibition against depictions of religious beings or individuals, also known aniconism, exists (or has existed) in multiple religions, including Buddhism and Christianity.

Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say it is forbidden to show pictures / portraits of the Prophet. That was later mentioned in some of the hadith.

The hadith literature was compiled from oral reports that were in circulation in society around the time of their compilation long after the death of Muhammad.

But in the Golden Age of Islam (till about the 14th century), it was not unusual for Muslims to make paintings showing scenes including the Prophet, as many historian finds prove.

And even now, the Shia Muslims (for instance in Iran), don't have any problems showing the Prophet, and on markets in Iran you can buy t-shirts, drawings etc etc showing the Prophet.

None of the other mentioned religions have it written in scripture that is a sin to depict their Prophet,
____________________________________________

is islam a special case?
why can't it be treated like every other religion/cult.
christians believe you can't take the lords name in vain...doesn't mean they should go around killing anyone who does

comment by IanWrightWrightWright (U12750)
posted 17 minutes ago
None of the other mentioned religions have it written in scripture that is a sin to depict their Prophet,
____________________________________________

is islam a special case?
why can't it be treated like every other religion/cult.
christians believe you can't take the lords name in vain...doesn't mean they should go around killing anyone who does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For god's sake it's not the same thing.

why not?

Oh it is, I just wanted to be ironic about it.

Yeah because Christians have never killed anyone in the name of religion . Not every single Muslim was involved in the killings but I imagine every single Muslim was offended by the picture, your taking the actions of a very small part of a huge group of people and attributing them everyone within that group.

fortunately most Christians aren't still living in the dark ages.

what gives you the authority to say all muslims were offended, or are they all brainwashed to the same degree?

I said I'd imagine which isn't me stating every Muslim was offended it's a presumption based on the fact its it's written in the Quran.
To make a statement like the one above you must believe most Muslims are still living in the dark ages?

people are offended because something's written it therefore makes it a fact?

there's load of things written in other holy books that are not treated as facts so what makes islam any different?

You must of either misread or misinterpreted what I've wrote because I cannot understand how you got that from what I've wrote.

there's load of things written in other holy books that are not treated as facts so what makes islam any different?
------
Never got the concept of editing it and picking and choosing what's ok as it kind of undermines the point of it being the holy word of god.

Regarding the cartoons religions shouldn't be off limits or given special protection, and i don't get why religious people give so much importance to the opinions/actions of people who aren't part of their faith anyway.

For example there's a Muslim guy at work who drinks and eats bacon yet says Charlie Hebdo are wrong to insult Islam... surely he's making more of a mockery of his religion than someone who drawing a cartoon who has nothing to do with it.

if someone wants to practice their faith and it makes their life better then that's a good thing and I respect that but as a collective imo it's outdated and holds society back. And non religions people are increasing at a faster rate than any other religion so their opinions should be respected and they should be allowed a voice and that's where the cartoons are coming from. by pushing boundaries and make people open their minds about topics that others are too scared to bring up.