French magazine publishes controversial cartoons of Prophet Muhammad - many killed in revenge attack

[Pickman's model]

Maybe the Koran isn't the best place to start. Have you ever heard of a boy called Harry Potter?

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.

It had a perfectly round door like a porthole, painted green, with a shiny yellow brass knob in the exact middle. The door opened on to a tube-shaped hall like a tunnel: a very comfortable tunnel without smoke, with panelled walls, and floors tiled and carpeted, provided with polished chairs, and lots and lots of pegs for hats and coats—the hobbit was fond of visitors. The tunnel wound on and on, going fairly but not quite straight into the side of the hill—The Hill, as all the people for many miles round called it—and many little round doors opened out of it, first on one side and then on another. No going upstairs for the hobbit: bedrooms, bathrooms, cellars, pantries (lots of these), wardrobes (he had whole rooms devoted to clothes), kitchens, dining-rooms, all were on the same floor, and indeed on the same passage. The best rooms were all on the left-hand side (going in), for these were the only ones to have windows, deep-set round windows looking over his garden, and meadows beyond, sloping down to the river.

This hobbit was a very well-to-do hobbit, and his name was Baggins. The Bagginses had lived in the neighbourhood of The Hill for time out of mind, and people considered them very respectable, not only because most of them were rich, but also because they never had any adventures or did anything unexpected: you could tell what a Baggins would say on any question without the bother of asking him. This is a story of how a Baggins had an adventure, and found himself doing and saying things altogether unexpected. He may have lost the neighbours’ respect, but he gained—well, you will see whether he gained anything in the end.

 

[ddraig]

No, not all Muslims are murderers, and it was not my intention to say that. Posting in a hurry is probably not a good idea, when I said that the 'apologists' defence was getting a bit thin, I was referring to those who say that the incident in Paris, amongst many others is a reaction to British and French (amongst others) involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan Syria etc. That won't wash I'm afraid, as the old saw has it 'Two wrongs don't make a right'.

Today at work I suffered an acute muscle spasm in my lower back. I was looked after by a Muslim First Aider. How do I know that he was a Muslim? He lent me his prayer rug to stretch out on, until the spasm passed. We discussed what had happened in France, he was absolutely appalled, and was of the same view as me, these people are not Muslims in anything but misnomer.

My daughter's partner is a cartoonist, and is the current president of the Cartoonists Association. He was off to France early this morning, to comfort the widow of one of the dead, who had been a close friend.

Demonising ordinary Muslims is absolutely wrong, and if it escalates will drive more people towards extremism. I do have major problems with Islamic theology, and bigger problems with Sharia law, that however does not mean that I have any antipathy whatsoever towards 'ordinary' Muslims. I do think that Muslim philosophy does act as an 'enabler' in the drift to extremism, because the faith is an integral part of ordinary life. The average Christian attends church on Sunday, and tries to live a good life for the rest of the week, and has no dietary rules to follow. Muslims pray five times a day, attend the mosque every day and have strict dietary restrictions. It is a different way of life.

you are a total joke

 

[gentlegreen]

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. meadows beyond, sloping down to the river.
.....

I've heard dramatisations. I've read a few token books, even seen shakespeare - and a lot of TV drama - but I find I have limited enthusiasm for such material

 

[butchersapron]

I've heard dramatisations. I've read a few token books, even seen shakespeare - and a lot of TV drama - but I find I have limited enthusiasm for such material

On what do you base your understanding and rejection of...say ...biblical studies on then?

 

[gentlegreen]

On what do you base your understanding and rejection of...say ...biblical studies on then?

Being the age I am, I've inevitably had those stories at least poked into my brain over the decades.
The JWs called and left a helpful book while I was learning evolution and genetics.
I reckon Genesis and the Flood see the bible off - at least when you're dealing with people who claim every word is divinely inspired and "true".

 

[butchersapron]

I've had those stories at least poked into my brain over the decades.
The JWs called and left a helpful book while I was learning evolution and genetics.
I reckon Genesis and the Flood see the bible off - at least when you're dealing with people who claim every word is divinely inspired and "true".

Biblical studies have little if nothing to do with what you imagine they do. If you read a book you'd know that.

 

[butchersapron]

UAF have avoided the seympour/calliniocos/german but trap by using while.

 

[danny la rouge]

je suis charlie? it’s a bit late - Kenan Malik

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/je-suis-charlie-its-a-bit-late/

‘Je suis Charlie’. It’s a phrase in every newspaper, in every Twitter feed, on demonstrations in cities across Europe. The expressions of solidarity with those slain in the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices are impressive. They are also too late. Had journalists and artists and political activists taken a more robust view on free speech over the past 20 years then we may never have come to this.

Instead, they have helped create a new culture of self-censorship. Partly, it is a question of fear, an unwillingness to take the kind of risks that the editors of Charlie Hebdo courted, and for which they have paid such a heavy price. But fear is only part of the explanation. There has also developed over the past two decades a moral commitment to censorship, a belief that because we live in a plural society, so we must police public discourse about different cultures and beliefs, and constrain speech so as not to give offence. In the words of the British sociologist Tariq Modood, ‘If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism.’

[...]

Yet, hardly had news begun filtering out about the Charlie Hebdo shootings, than there were those suggesting that the magazine was a ‘racist institution’ and that the cartoonists, if not deserving what they got, had nevertheless brought it on themselves through their incessant attacks on Islam. What is really racist is the idea only nice white liberals want to challenge religion or demolish its pretensions or can handle satire and ridicule. Those who claim that it is ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’ to mock the Prophet Mohammad, appear to imagine, with the racists, that all Muslims are reactionaries. It is here that leftwing ‘anti-racism’ joins hands with rightwing anti-Muslim bigotry.

What is called ‘offence to a community’ is more often than not actually a struggle within communities. There are hudreds of thousands, within Muslim communities in the West, and within Muslim-majority countries across the world, challenging religious-based reactionary ideas and policies and institutions; writers, cartoonists, political activists, daily putting their lives on the line in facing down blasphemy laws, standing up for equal rights and fighting for democratic freedoms; people like Pakistani cartoonistSabir Nazar, the Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, exiled to India after death threats, or the Iranian blogger Soheil Arabi, sentenced to death last year for ‘insulting the Prophet’. What happened in theCharlie Hebdo offices in Paris was viscerally shocking; but in the non-Western world, those who stand up for their rights face such threats every day.

 

[butchersapron]

je suis charlie? it’s a bit late - Kenan Malik

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/je-suis-charlie-its-a-bit-late/

Great piece kenan.Note last line:

What happened in the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris was viscerally shocking; but in the non-Western world, those who stand up for their rights face such threats every day.

Shiv Malik retweeted
8m

Zaid Benjamin @zaidbenjamin
#IS fighters have executed 2 journalists in east #Libya for working in a TV channel "that insults Allah" pic.twitter.com/afiWGNMy9Z

 

[ska invita]

Kenan Malik: Had journalists and artists and political activists taken a more robust view on free speech over the past 20 years then we may never have come to this.

cant see how - this is an international political struggle way beyond any actions journalists and artists might have made. I cant see how more people defying the "moral censorship" would not have meant "we may never have come to this"

 

[butchersapron]

cant see how - this is an international political struggle way beyond any actions journalists and artists might have made. More people defying the "moral censorship" would no have meant "we may never have come to this"

It means that civil society would have driven out the idea that freedom of expression depends on the acceptance of targets of criticism of the right of others to make those criticisms - and a very differently socialised society as regards the same.

 

[danny la rouge]

cant see how - this is an international political struggle way beyond any actions journalists and artists might have made. I cant see how more people defying the "moral censorship" would not have meant "we may never have come to this"

Read the full piece, he puts it better than I could paraphrase. But I will if you want.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Excellent stuff from Malik. spot on.

 

[danny la rouge]

It means that civil society would have driven out the idea that freedom of expression depends on the acceptance of targets of criticism of the right of others to make those criticisms - and a very differently socialised society as regards the same.

And that creating a culture of "you can't say that" betrays moderates in "the communities", meaning the thing they want to say can't be said either.

 

[butchersapron]

And that creating a culture of "you can't say that" betrays moderates in "the communities", meaning the thing they want to say can't be said either.

Indeed, that pull that that freedom to speak openly would have created. Should have created.

 

[Joe Reilly]

UAF have avoided the seympour/calliniocos/german but trap by using while.

It's sourly amusing to read that the rise of the far-right across Europe over the last 30 years has absolutely to do with what the liberal Left has been doing (or not doing) over the same period. In their eyes they bear absolutely no responsibility; are entirely blameless and fully expect their recommendations to be taken at face value.

 

[ska invita]

Read the full piece, he puts it better than I could paraphrase. But I will if you want.

right, read the full piece and this bit rings true

" The more that society gives licence for people to be offended, the more that people will seize the opportunity to feel offended. And the more deadly they will become in expressing their outrage. There will always be extremists who respond as the Charlie Hebdo killers did. The real problem* is that their actions are given a spurious moral legitimacy by liberals who proclaim it unacceptable to give offence."

I still think "we may never have come to this" is taking things far - there's a war on, on multiple fronts. I'm more surprised that more terrorist attacks in the west havent happened. Just how much more deadly can militant fundamentalists become in expressing their outrage?

Considering the amount of dead already and the degree of instability post-Iraq invasion I really don't have a problem with just a modicum of tact, and beyond that I really don't think moral self-censorship is to blame for this loss of life.

ETA: "The real problem"? <also too far

 

[Lurdan]

I like the sentiments Malik is expressing but obviously the struggle he describes isn't simply conducted by relatively high profile public writers but also by ordinary people negotiating and challenging power in their everyday lives.

(And IMO in the context of Urban there is a certain irony about the list of examples he provides. If these people were speaking out publicly as part of the commentariat here in the UK a vocal section here would be parsing every sentence in order to discover ever more convoluted reasons to be offended by what they wrote. The flipside in some ways to the culture of self-censorship he rightly excoriates).

 

[ska invita]

And that creating a culture of "you can't say that" betrays moderates in "the communities", meaning the thing they want to say can't be said either.

i follow this in theory but how in concrete terms? As has been pointed out its fine to have a picture of the Prophet even in the middle east - wasnt it Kenan Malik who listed examples of it?
The case could be made that red rag to a bull pictures are just as effective at smearing the concept of free speech and limiting the voices of moderates "in the communities".
No need to keep talking about this - I think we understand each others side of this - Im open to both sides of it.

 

[butchersapron]

The french state lactating onto to this freedom of speech is sickening too.

edit: latching, latching

 

[butchersapron]

One for Sirena:

 

[quiquaquo]

And memorising that book of theirs - I had a look the other day - I reckon that must affect you - it doesn't even flow like the King James. I couldn't penetrate it even with explanation.

But the young men who do this stuff are often very late converts.

Of course it doesn't flow like the KJ in translation, in Arabic it certainly does: http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/the-inimitable-quran/

 

[Brainaddict]

Haven't read the whole thread, but have read comments here and there. This point might have been made already: there is a difference between a less powerful group attacking the mainstream religion of the powerful, and a more powerful group attacking (through racist images no less) a minority religion in their country that they already know to feel besieged by bigotry. Unless we are ignoring power relations now? There is an ethical difference, a difference in outcome, and it makes a difference to the freedom of speech argument. I am more interested in defending the freedom to say what we like against the powerful, not against groups that already feel attacked. There *is* a freedom of speech argument there, just about, but it isn't very interesting or the thing I would focus on.

 

[butchersapron]

Now says :

EDITOR'S NOTE:
A story reporting on conspiracy theorists who allege a link between Israeli intelligence and the Paris shootings should never have been published and we have therefore removed it from our site. The story was beneath our standards and we apologize for this basic lapse in judgement.

edit:in relation to the IBT report above

 

[ska invita]

Haven't read the whole thread, but have read comments here and there. This point might have been made already: there is a difference between a less powerful group attacking the mainstream religion of the powerful, and a more powerful group attacking (through racist images no less) a minority religion in their country that they already know to feel besieged by bigotry. Unless we are ignoring power relations now? There is an ethical difference, a difference in outcome, and it makes a difference to the freedom of speech argument. I am more interested in defending the freedom to say what we like against the powerful, not against groups that already feel attacked. There *is* a freedom of speech argument there, just about, but it isn't very interesting or the thing I would focus on.

agree - and not just locally but with a backdrop (depending where your live) of international conflict

 

[danny la rouge]

i follow this in theory but how in concrete terms?

You get a much fuller picture if you read his book Fatwa to Jihad. It's a teeny bit of a misnomer, since be sees the process as beginning before that. He describes how well-meaning but ultimately harmful attempts at anti-racism harmed freedom of speech, creating the culture in society at large, magnified in the communities he had known growing up as being fairly secular and integrated, which lead to the Satanic Verses protests in Bradford. The situation has worsened since then. This is a process that's been going on now for decades, which was created by - in effect - liberal relativism.

Here's the introduction: http://www.kenanmalik.com/papers/fatwa_intro.html

Here's a review: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/14/religion-islam

The book is thoroughly worth reading and re-reading, in my view.

 

[butchersapron]

Haven't read the whole thread, but have read comments here and there. This point might have been made already: there is a difference between a less powerful group attacking the mainstream religion of the powerful, and a more powerful group attacking (through racist images no less) a minority religion in their country that they already know to feel besieged by bigotry. Unless we are ignoring power relations now? There is an ethical difference, a difference in outcome, and it makes a difference to the freedom of speech argument. I am more interested in defending the freedom to say what we like against the powerful, not against groups that already feel attacked. There *is* a freedom of speech argument there, just about, but it isn't very interesting or the thing I would focus on.

Of this confusion you've posted, what on earth applies here?

 

[articul8]

The french state lactating onto to this freedom of speech is sickening too.

edit: latching, latching

 

[butchersapron]

Symbolism and memory.

 

[Lurdan]

Symbolism and mammary.

Corrected that for you.