The document summarizes the history between Charlie Hebdo magazine and Islam, including controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed that sparked riots in Muslim communities in 2006 and led to over 200 deaths. It discusses the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo's headquarters in 2015 that killed 12 people. While many supported Charlie Hebdo's freedom of speech, the document argues that depicting religious figures can be seen as disrespectful by some faiths and that portraying Mohammed with a bomb was understandably offensive to Muslims given the religious prohibitions around depicting him. It questions whether the magazine's actions should be seen as a debate over free speech or an issue of moral judgment.

1. In case you missed it, last month the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, a weekly satirical
newspaper based in France, fell victim to an Islamist terrorist attack that left 12 dead and
several others wounded. The attacks immediately caused a world-wide uproar, with many
showing their support for the paper. However, there is a large group of those who do not
stand with the #JeSuisCharlie solidarity movement formed in the aftermath.
Charlie Hebdo has a long, tense history with Islam. Back in 2006, the magazine reprinted
highly controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed originally published by the
Danish paper Jyllands-Posten a few weeks earlier. The cartoons were supposed to make a
point about freedom of speech, very similar to the debates going on now. One showed the
Prophet with a bomb in place of a turban. Although most were much less overtly
offensive, these images caused riots in Muslim parts of the world, resulting in some 200
deaths.
We discussed this particular event in a media course I was taking last semester. I was
surprised when several (not many, just a vocal minority I'd say) classmates referred to the
riots as an overreaction.
"I'm not offended."
"They need to get over it."
"These people aren't going to be treated right if they don't act right."
I was curious as to what a room full of predominantly upper-middle class, white, liberal
arts students thought was the right way to act. That's a really imperialist sentence if you
ask me. Taking that train of thought a few steps further, might as well say "conform or

2. die". How should one act when their Prophet, the one who was chosen by Allah to speak
through, is shown as an extremist suicide bomber? That's kind of like showing Jesus
Christ as a child-molesting member of the clergy. It might not bother you, but it's
offensive to the faith of many.
Americans love to say "they make fun of Jesus all the time on Family guy!" but there is a
major difference between that and these drawings of the Prophet, other than the fact that
Christianity is the dominant religion and Islam is one of the most repressed.
(Let me remind you that I am white, and raised Catholic. I probably learned this next bit
from some Wikipedia'ing of Islam when I was younger and although I am researching it
more in depth for this article, my interpretation may not be perfect.)
The Prophet Mohammed is never described in the Koran, and the Prophet is not a god. In
Islam there is to be no one idolized other than Allah, and that includes creating, owning
or praying to depictions of other famous religious figures. This is know as "shirk" and it's
actually one of the most unforgivable sins in Islam. (Islam Q&A) Drawing the Prophet is
a form of shirk.
Charlie Hebdo has put him on their front cover more than once, doing or saying
something meant to be satirical. As a result, there have been legal cases against the
cartoonists, firebombings, and closings of French schools abroad. That's in the last ten
years alone. Charb, Charlie Hebdo's recently slain editor-in-cheif, was once quoted as
saying "Mohammed isn't sacred to me." ("Obituary: Defiant Charlie Hebdo editor", 2015)
It's not about what's sacred to you, it's about what you should and should not publish on a
front cover. I am not supporting the actions of terrorists, but I can't say I'm surprised by

3. them. Free speech may be a right in some countries, including France, but that protection
is from your own government. And there are a lot of limits on free speech, including
xenophobia. Europe has laws against printing offensive materials, enacted in the years
following the Holocaust. Just because it isn't towards the same group of people, doesn't
mean there aren't similarities. France has a huge anti-Islamic history, such as bans that
include their traditional face-covering veils. In America, our first amendment rights
specifically disinclude the right to "make or distribute obscene materials" which is what
I'd call the main goal of Charlie Hebdo at this point. ("What Does Free Speech Mean?")
Especially considering their next cover following the attack featured the Prophet himself
with a #JeSuisCharlie sign. I think a lot of people should reconsider this as less of a
debate about free speech, and more so an issue of moral judgement. Just because you
have the right to say, or in this case draw, something, doesn't mean people don't have the
right to be upset. In fact, the cartoonist who drew the images of Mohammed with the
bomb for a turban has been attacked so many times, he lives under 24 hour security
watch. (McGraw, 2012)
(And just for a point of comparison, before the end of 2001, Charlie Hebdo ran a cover of
Osama Bin Laden saying "no hands" in reference to the fact that his followers carried out
9/11 while he sat back at home. Look it up.)
References
What is the true meaning of shirk and what are its types? (n.d.). Retrieved February 2,
2015, from http://islamqa.info/en/34817

4. Obituary: Defiant Charlie Hebdo editor. (2015, January 7). Retrieved February 3, 2015,
from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710545
What Does Free Speech Mean? (n.d.). Retrieved February 2, 2015, from
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-
activities/first- amendment/free-speech.aspx
McGraw, P., & Warner, J. (2012, September 25). The Danish Cartoon Crisis of 2005 and
2006: 10 Things You Didn't Know About the Original Muhammad Controversy.
Retrieved February 3, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-mcgraw-
and- joel-warner/muhammad-cartoons_b_1907545.html