Charlie Hebdo’s strange cover

Is anyone else at least slightly perplexed that a quintessentially Christian message of forgiveness is being conveyed on Charlie Hebdo’s new cover with reference to Islamist terrorism next to Islam’s prophet when the victims were mainly atheists and Jews? Western confusion, anyone?

There’s something very strange about the Charlie Hebdo cover featuring a picture of Mohammed. And no, it’s not the fact that they, in contrast with practically all of the British media, have had the courage to depict the person Muslims regard as their Prophet.

They’ve done that dozens of times. What is strange is the caption that accompanies it at the top.

Share
  • David Murrell

    I disagree with much of this posted essay, and I speak as a Christian and a conservative here. For one thing, the cartoon depict Mohammed crying and holding up a sign saying “I am Charlie Hebdo” — and that say, to my mind, something scathing about Islam. It is true that the saying “All is forgiven” is a Christian message, and it is true that Jews and atheists are a core part of France. Having said that, France is still a Christian-Catholic country, and maybe Hebdo is playing to that part of France.
    Another point is that the Hebdo magazine wanted to say something moderate and profound, against a backdrop of a dominant dhimmi-appeasing media would refuses to depict the Hebdo cartoons. So by going with this rather striking cartoon on the cover, the Hebdo management wanted to see if the dominant dhimmi media would come out, at last, to show the cover. I have read that SOME od the regular dhimmi media cartel broke with the cartel, and printed the cover in full. Readers will have to help me out on this, but I think the LA Times, the Boston Globe and the AP press did publish the cover, as part of news reporting. (The avowedly pro-Islamist NY Time, the Globe and Mail, and others still continue to censor the cover cartoon).
    What I am getting at is mainstream Muslims, plus the pro-Islamist media cartel, dislike the cover cartoon. Plus, this issue of Charlie Hebdo extended its press run to 5 million copies. That in and of itself should suggest that the Hebdo management made a good choice.

    • I am not entirely in agreement with the article but I thought it worthwhile food for thought nonetheless.

    • Censored_often

      I initially interpreted the cover to be purposely ambiguous such that it would be interpreted differently by different individuals and groups, i.e. Christians, Muslims, French citizens, non-French citizens, and so forth.

      If this is the case, Charlie Hebdo has certainly succeeded as the cover is anything but crystal clear.

      • moraywatson

        To the muslims, Charlie Hebdo’s question seemed to be, “Aren’t you always telling us that islam is a religion of peace, and mohammed was a peaceful guy? If so how could depicting a sad, tolerant, mohammed be a bad thing?” Those questions are of course rhetorical.

    • moraywatson

      Yes. The Washington Post printed the new cover. Their editorial comment was that they did not print previous Charlie Hebdo cartoons because they considered them gross or gratuitously offensive, and NOT because they have a general opposition to representations of the prophette per se. That was in keeping with my understanding of the thrust behind the new cover – Charlie Hebdo asking in effect, “How can you be offended by this?”.

  • Linda1000

    The cover was kind of lame in that of course old Moham always praises or rewards those who slaughter or murder in his name. I thought a couple of more tears and at least one alahu hackbar could have been added. I didn’t see it as a particularly sarcastic or funny picture but maybe the remaining CH staff weren’t in the mood after their co-workers and friends had just been cold-bloodedly shot to death. I just chalked it up to me not always understanding French humour. I also roll my eyes at how they curse or insult (Quebec French) because the religious references they use don’t pack any punch or not like our “square head” four-letter words. What do Quebecois call us these days and what do the Parisiennes call the Brits?

  • I think that the “all is forgiven” and the tear in Mo’s eye are just expressions of the artist’s fear of reprisal. He wanted to be brave and depict Mo, but at the same time he is trying to soften the blow and begging Moslem fanatics to not get upset and to spare him.

  • Barrington Minge

    Yer mooslims don’t understand forgiveness. It’s not part of the 7th century death culture they worship.