How to teach Muslims about dealing with offense

[david_carnell]

I don't agree with all of it, but Mehdi Hasan does make some interesting points here.

http://www.newstatesman.com/mehdi-hasan/2015/01/muslim-i-m-fed-hypocrisy-free-speech-fundamentalists

Well worth a read.

[Blah Blah]

Good article David. Again it comes back to perspective. IS is not about to invade Europe any time soon.

[Dopamine1979]

I think Otta's point is that 'Inciting hatred' in terms of publication of certain offensive material would be illegal in the UK regardless of Freedom of speech. It could be argued that publishing these cartoons would fall within that category. The defence that 'it's only a joke' wouldn't stand up.

[Jeremy]

Dopamine1979 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It could be argued that publishing

> these cartoons would fall within that category.

I think that would be a very hard argument to win.

[Loz]

Oh my - a Mehdi Hasan article I broadly agree with.

I think I need to sit down. I feel woozy.

[StraferJack]

I call bullshit on most of that article

Muslims don't have to have thicker skin. They just have to deal with same stuff everyone else does

Publishing pictures of He Who Can't Be Shown isn't racist or an act of war. We have continued ongoing depictions of Christ in all manner of films, plays magazines etc. and yes some Christians get all cross but we don't not publish them for that reason

Some men in beards decided that the prophet can't be shown. that's it. That is the basis of your hurt. Grow up FFS

(Annoyingly I am aware that ugly people across Europe actually persecute Muslims and it can't be easy. But pick your battles people)

[KidKruger]

As soon as we can definitively prove 'God' does not exist the better. There really should be a committee tasked with this. But then again, I kid myself. With religion debunked once and for all, the hate and belligerence would just re-group under a different banner. The need is there to be part of some group and biased against other groups. The religion inventors (very clever, admittedly) just exploited this trait.

The sad thing is that in the name of such a load of total bollox people have been killing each other for centuries.

'Respect religion'.

That's like saying 'Respect magic'.

Fine. I won't criticise your religious beliefs. But I do think it's at best a fantasy that we have a supernatural creator.

I just can't believe that in this day and age people genuinely believe this croc. Astounding.

[Jeremy]

I agree with the start of his article... the freedom of speech issue isn't really black and white. As some of the above comments demonstrate, even us liberal westerners can't agree on what is/isn't acceptable.

But some of his accusations of double standards (i.e. we don't make fun out of the holocaust or 9/11 victims falling from twin towers) are plain ridiculous. As if this is in any way comparable...

[Otta]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not really Otta - inciting hatred is what an ISIS

> video does when it implores followers to murder

> non-believers.

>

> A cartoon of the prophet in a bathrobe doesn't

> incite anything.

I would have agreed before last week. But now last week has happened, they are about to publish another cartoon, which is set to offend shed loads of people.

Someone on Radio 4 this morning (can't remember who, but he wasn't a nutter and sounded reasonable) suggested that instead of Mohammed holding "Je suis Charlie", he could be holding "Je suis Ahmed" (after the muslim police officer that was killed). This may have shown more solidarity with people.

[Jeremy]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'Respect religion'.

> That's like saying 'Respect magic'.

Quite. I'd like to think that we all respect freedom of religion/belief/thought. But it would be stupid to automatically respect those beliefs.

[StraferJack]

The policeman was collateral damage, the magazine was the target. That's why that wouldn't work it's

I think the new cover is superb. It shows the prophet as kind and the opposite of the thugs who killed. What's to take offence at?

[Alan Medic]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No one has the right in life to wander around and

> never be offended.

I would say that everyone has the option of walking around and never being offended. It's where your headspace is. If you are happy then it's a case of sticks and stones.

I've been offended on this thread and actually feel like calling someone a prick. However who am I hurting by getting angry. Just me. I need to deal with that so next time it's water off a ducks back. I want to never be offended regardless of the offence and it's my right not to be.

[JohnL]

I've just caught up on last seasons South Park

How do they get away with it :)

Mind there isn't too much Muslim - loads of Jewish stuff that no-one ever seems offended by (how I don't know)

[Otta]

Because Jews are fair game to many people and a bit of casual antisemitism doesn't bother most people.

Israel has acted pretty harshly in recent times too, so everyone thinks Israel = Jew and that's given them another reason.

[El Pibe]

New cover not in slightest offensive to anyone.

People are only offended if they've decided to be.

"Some men in beards decided that the prophet can't be shown. that's it. That is the basis of your hurt. Grow up FFS"

That really is it. They didn't decide its offensive, they decided that you are too pathetic not to be corrupted by said image to become an idol worshipper. Said image unlikely to make anyone an idol worshipper. It is, in fact, entirely in keeping with all the Muslim naysayers who insist Islam is a religion of peace and love.

So the only people offended or consider it an act. Of war are those who are offensive or keen on a civilisational war.

So colour me unimpressed by calls of 'offence'

[StraferJack]

Saying South park is anti Semitic is pretty selective tho. Those guys rip into everything, constantly.

jews are not fair game. It would just be more odd if they were excluded

[Otta]

I wasn't talking about South Park. I stick by my previous post that a lot of people who probably wouldn't use racist slurs against other poeple, tend to just think it's okay with Jews. Try having my wife's last name and see some of the shit she's had on social media.

[Otta]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People are only offended if they've decided to

> be.

It's lines like that which bug me (I'm not offended by the way).

You and the likes of SJ, DC, Jeremy are not religious men, you think it's all a load of make believe (it probably is, but that's not what we're discussing here). MILLIONS of people do believe, how can you possibly say that it's "not in the slightest offensive to anyone"? It clearly bloody is.

It is not for you to decide what is or is not offensive to people. What are you, Mary Whitehouse?

[StraferJack]

Oh I've seen some of it and didn't mean to belittle the reality. I did think we were talking about media portrayal rather than the sea of idiots out there

[Otta]

Fair play, I thought John saying "no one ever seems to be offended by" was about more general casual antisemitism.

[StraferJack]

" you think it's all a load of make believe (it probably is, but that's not what we're discussing here)"

it kind of is

You can't just give in every time someone says something is offensive. Irrational people can work themselves up into a lather about any old crap. If someone is GENUINELY offended by that new front cover I would sit down with them and try and talk it through

Because if we give in to this sort of thing, we are going to have a whole bunch of crazy Christians saying "we are offended all the time - why do we allow [insert depiction of Jesus here]" - so do we then not show that?

And then people who believe homosexuality to be wrong (BIG overlap here btw!) wil lwant to repeal any sort of gay rights or depiction of because.. offended!!

And the Mary Whitehouse thing is just bizarre!!! When she was swanning around the TV studios giving out about nudity and profanity and the rest of it, people stood up to her. That's what I am trying to do here. How can you stand up to Whitehouse and BE Whitehouse???

[El Pibe]

"how can you possibly say that it's "not in the slightest offensive to anyone"?"

My speciality at uni (alongside the start of the cold war and some spectacularly dull stuff about burgundian dukes) was the rise of islam and the schisms.

I'm telling you that the issue about images of Mohammed is nothing to do with offence, it's to do with idolatry and the potential for apostasy. If you're comfortable in your worshhip they pose no threat, indeed many strands of islam are pretty ok with images full stop.

The original row about the earlier cartoons involved some pretty offensive images, as I said before. Some of the Charlie Hebdo stuff I've seen is pretty damn offensive too, I found some of them offensive, it wouldn't surprise me if many muslims did too. Though that still doesn't excuse the reactions to them, I find reality TV offensive, but I have yet to burn down Endemol offices with everyone inside.

What I'm saying is the new cover simply cannot be deemed offensive, it just isn't. It very much concurs with the majority islam view of allah and his prophet as merciful, peaceful and loving. How offensive is that?!?!?

The 'it offends muslims' line comes from demagogues and the odd iffy scholar, those who are choosing to be offended, and they're getting alot of buy in from other people who likewise will choose to do so, probably having no idea what it even looks like, because it feeds some anger and simmering resentment that hungers for more. Maybe gives an excuse for a good riot or burn an embassy or kill some passing christian or jew. In other words in 99% of cases around the world I imagine its based almost entirely on ignorance and propaganda and ectarian hatred.

And it will not effing be the new cover that is responsible for those deaths, it'll be whatever fuckwit shoots a stranger because some other fuckwit on youtube told them its bad.

[Otta]

"And it will not effing be the new cover that is responsible for those deaths, it'll be whatever @#$%& shoots a stranger because some other @#$%& on youtube told them its bad."

I know that.

Thanks though.

Thing is, I suspect a lot of the people that are offended didn't read history at uni.

I'm not suggesting that "we" (who?) give in to this sort of thing, I am suggesting that wounds are open and it might be a bit soon to pour salt on them.

[Otta]

I think my point is that a lot of the contributors on this forum are bright, well educated, well read people. And they expect the rest of the planet to be all of that too.

They aren't.

[maxxi]

What KK said, except that if we finally could dispel the fantasy of religion there would (without getting too Marxist about it) possibly be millions of people all over the world waking up; snapping out of it as though coming out of a stage-hypnotist's trance and thinking, "If there's no God and ergo no afterlife/reincarnation/etc... what the fuck am I putting up with this shit for?"

Might they be a little pissed off?

As most of them manage to refrain from being muderous lunatics, should they still keep (or should we hope they continue) drinking the Kool Aid?

Or will people believe in "The Force" by then?

Yes I know it's bonkers but I recently spent some time with a friend from Calif. (I know) who kept banging on about The Singularity and it leading to a kind of 'not-dying-immortality-second-life' bollocks.

No, you're right. Not the thread for that.