Charlie Hebdo artist: Drawing The Prophet ‘no longer interests me’

JeSuis-Charlie-image_011315PARIS (Reuters) – The French cartoonist Luz, who drew Charlie Hebdo’s cover picture of the Prophet Mohammad after the Islamist killings at the satirical weekly in January, has said he will no longer draw the Prophet.

“He no longer interests me,” he told Les Inrockuptibles in an interview published on its website on Wednesday.

“I’ve got tired of it, just as I got tired of drawing Sarkozy. I’m not going to spend my life drawing them.”

Islamist militants claiming to be avenging the Prophet killed 12 people when they attacked the Paris offices of the irreverent weekly, known for lampooning Islam along with other religions.

For Muslims, any depiction of the Prophet is blasphemous, but Charlie Hebdo’s next edition carried on its cover Luz’s cartoon of a tearful Mohammad holding a “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) sign under the words “All is forgiven”.

In an outpouring of solidarity and concern for freedom of expression across France, it sold several million copies rather than its usual circulation of 60,000.

“The terrorists did not win,” Luz told the magazine. “They will have won if the whole of France continues to be scared.”

About the author



Click here to post a comment

  • All is forgiven ? Did the Muslim world ask for forgiveness? Twelve people are dead because of a cartoon.

  • Great, drawing silly cartoons doesn’t help with constructive dialogue.
    Having said that, why does the media keep referring to Mohammed as “the prophet” every time you mention his name? Do you also refer to Jesus as Lord and Savior Jesus every time you mention Jesus in the news? Quit referring to him as “the prophet”, he may be a prophet for the Muslims but he is not to others. If you must call him “prophet” then refer to him as, “Muslim prophet Mohammed”

  • “Do you also refer to Jesus as Lord and Savior Jesus every time you mention Jesus in the news?”

    Plenty do, actually. Many news reporting seems to use the term “Jesus Christ” (Christ meaning Messiah). But he’s only the Christ to the Christians, so by you’re logic this use of title is wrong, and should be stripped from every instance it is used in reporting.

    Should we extend this to ALL religious titles?? Should we not say “Pope Francis” but rather “Francis, Pope of the Catholic Religion”?? Should we remind everyone the Dalai Lama is only “Dalai Lama” to the Tibetan Buddhists??

    Or maybe we should just let it go and not get our panties in a bundle over semantics. EVERYONE knows when someone says “the Prophet Muhammad” they are referring to the Muslim Prophet. It’s not really something that needs clarification.

  • Walter- Good point.

    Good Journalism requires that statements be factual, so “the Prophet Mohammad” is simply wrong, as he’s not a prophet to everyone, and “the Muslim Prophet Mohammad” or “Muslims see as” or such is correct.

    After all, if we are going to start affirming the doctrines of religions, then we’d have to list thing like “the Prophet David Koresh”, “the Mahdi Dia Abdul Zahra Kadim”, “the god Sathya Sai Baba”, “Jesus on earth Joseph Kony”, “the spokesman of God, Pope Francis”, and so on.

  • Agree with the first part of your comment. Yo mama jokes are juvenile.

    Disagree with the second part of your comment.
    Media has to be equally respectful to all religions. Whenever they mention,

    Lord Jesus, they shall call Him Lord and Savior, Jesus.

    The Buddha shall be called ‘The Buddha’,

    Mohammad shall be called ‘Prophet Mohammad’,
    Joseph Smith shall be called ‘Prophet Joseph Smith’
    JWs shall be referred to as ‘Jehovah’s Prophet’

    Moses shall be called Moses.

  • What about “the Prophet David Koresh”, “the spokesperson of God, Joseph Kony” etc.? After all, as you say:

    ….EVERYONE knows when someone says “…” they are referring to the … Prophet. It’s not really something that needs clarification.

  • Why? Why do religions automatically get to foist their beliefs on us?

    If you are going to “respect” religions, then don’t you have to “respect” them all?

    So then what about “the Prophet David Koresh”, “the spokesperson of God, Joseph Kony” etc.?

    Or, will we realize that religions aren’t people any more than corporations aren’t people. All people deserve respect – but religions aren’t people.

  • Good point, Jon.

    Except that, Prophet David Koresh has not yet established a major religion for himself.

  • Who judges what’s “major”? I don’t think anyone should be deciding which religions they are going to favor by forcing their beliefs on every reader, and which not. David Koresh did have churches, property, followers, a budget, etc. Would we set a dollar amount for a church to be considered “major” enough for journalists to foist its beliefs upon readers?

    Also – someone brought up the Pope. I think that some titles can refer to offices, and might be OK. Everyone agrees that Francis holds that office. I certainly don’t think he should be referred to as “Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ”, but just “Pope” might be an accurate office name.

    Maybe there is a reasonable course were we identify office names that are OK to use, while being careful to remove doctrinal claims?

  • “Won’t draw Mohammed”

    Oh. I guess we are all Muslims now? We must bow this nonsense?

    Instead of making the world safe for freedom of speech most of the West sits on its nervous thumbs and lets Religious Bullies make wild, preposterous claims about prophecy – UNDER THREAT OF DEATH!

    How dare they?
    Who are these pathetic clerics with special information about how many Zombies walked for Christ? How dare they demand respect for such superstitious HOGWASH! (Matthew 27:52)

    How dare they?
    Who are these pathetic clerics who claim this racist, bigoted crap deserves RESPECT!? :
    “Kill the infidels…Infidels are those who declare: “God is the Christ, the son of Mary.” (Sura 5:17)

    How dare these Clerics stand in front of each other with these primitive arguments and threaten humanity in process! Enough! Go back to your caves.

    Religion poisons everything.

  • @Walter,

    He who demands obedience under threats of death is PRECISELY the one who must be disparaged.

    Charlie Hebdo Cartoons were the only hope for human progress. Blasphemy
    in the face of these extremist knuckleheads who DEMANDED OBEDIENCE TO THEIR GOD was exactly the right thing to do.

    We need to make a stand here!
    We need to take responsibility to protect our own freedom of speech!

    Isn’t it bad enough that we have no leaders to protect it? We have to self-censor too!? What a pathetic lot we must be to not care about our freedom more than this.
    Good grief!

  • Max,

    According to the article he got tired of drawing him, he didn’t stop because of pressure.

  • @Candy Man,

    I read the article.
    He is saying he “will not” draw Mohammed.

    It is transparent why he would make such an announcement.
    The pressure is too much – and it comes not only from a clutch of hysterical Islamic clerics but from INDIFFERENT western liberals who mistakenly think the attacks on religion are racist.

    The cartoonist is afraid. And that is our fault – and our loss!

  • “Charlie Hebdo Cartoons were the only hope for human progress.”

    NOW, I’ve heard everything !!!!!!!!!!!

  • Yes, Doc,

    Human progress depends on blasphemy. We would be nothing without blasphemy.

    Slavery = religion
    Freeing the slaves = blasphemy

    God in charge (totalitarianism) = religion
    People in charge (democracy) = blasphemy