"We don't know what their motivation was but if they [the gunmen] were offended by what this person [the magazine editor] was doing, it just doesn't justify shooting him." French police descend on the village of Longpont. Credit:Reuters He said Muslims are offended when the prophet is depicted in a derogatory way because the prophet is regarded as a perfect human being. "Muslims are very emotional about the way their prophet is treated or referred to in the public domain because of the importance he plays in an individual's life. "He's the perfect model of how to be, and some people can take it to heart when he's depicted in an offensive way."

Mr Seyit says there's no direct Koranic verses that refer to the depiction of the prophet, although the Koran is against the depiction of human faces or animals in places of worship. It was after the death of the prophet that Islamic scholars ruled that if the prophet was depicted in an offensive way, it would be an insult to Muslims and Islam. Mr Seyit said the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the prophet would only be a crime in a fully Islamic sharia-compliant society. But such a society doesn't exist. The shooters were acting above any law, with no government's sanction. "Whoever these people [the assassins] were, if they were doing it under the pretext of Islamic motivation, they're totally wrong. You can't do that in the first place, and to kill a person is a grave sin." He said "to take the law into your own hands is definitely unacceptable and not sanctioned by any Islamic body".

Keysar Trad, spokesman for the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, said the massacre was "contrary to the Islamic teachings that we grew up with". "We don't condone this violence in any way," he said. "We don't understand why people would go off the rails to such an extent that they would commit an act of violence. "We don't agree with the cartoons, but by the same token, our religion does not allow us to cause any harm to people who might do them. "Anything that is derogatory to our religious figures of course is offensive. When somebody attempts to offend you, you can take offence but it doesn't mean that you should resort to violence at all." He said the Koran does not talk about the depiction of the prophet. But the other key source of Islamic teachings, the Hadith – traditions based on the words of the prophet inspired by god – discourages the depiction of living things.

Mr Trad said this was to discourage idolatry or hero worship of good people or ancestors. He said Hebdo Charlie artists had defamed a major religious figure but the prophet Muhammad himself "did not retaliate on anyone who said mean and nasty things to him". "The [magazine] people, whatever they might have said about the prophet, we believe that's wrong, but it does not justify anyone physically attacking them. The tradition of the prophet is that he never attacked people who mocked or ridiculed him. "The only people he had a conflict with were the people who were actually inciting others towards violence or the people who were coming to physically attack him and his followers. "But those who just merely mocked or ridiculed, he won them over through kindness. There's a verse in the Koran [chapter 41, verse 34] that clearly says, 'Resist evil with goodness'.

"He was always forgiving towards those who were rude or mocking towards him." Mr Trad said Sunni Muslims were "a little more concerned about imagery" than Shiites. "But I don't think it's the sect in the religion that would lead to greater offence. I think it's more so the individual - whatever's going on in their mind."