Understanding Freedom of Speech

Standman

In the wake of what has happened in Paris, I have read many accounts of Muslims condemning the attacks and stating that violence is to be abhorred. That was not at all surprising to me as I of course believe the vast majority of Muslims are good, peaceful people.

One thing that I have noticed however, is that I have not seen a Muslim give such a frank, unconditional statement of support to the principle of free speech. In fact I get the impression that Muslims living in Europe, or more specifically Irish Muslims, may believe freedom of speech should not cover depictions of Muhammed. I am completely open to correction on this as I could have easily missed it.

Take for example the guidelines regarding Muhammed cartoons released recently by the Islamic cultural centre in Ireland. While these guidelines undoubtedly encourage a positive, thoughtful, and measured response, I would like to point out guideline no 3:

Muslims do believe in freedom of speech. And they do respect the right for people to say what they believe to be correct. However, we all know that there is no such thing as absolute free speech. There are laws to protect the dignity and properties of people. We urge all decent minded Governments and individuals to respect these sensitivities, as we should respect all races and religions. In the struggle for freedom of speech it was never the intention to extend freedom of speech to making fun or insulting customs, traditions, personalities that are sacred to a particular community.

It seems here that the Islamic centre think depictions of Muhammed should not be allowed as, they point out, "there is no such thing as absolute free speech". While it is true that there are & should be limitations to speech, I really think that the depictions of Muhammed in this case should certainly not be one of them. It's important to bear in mind that this guideline is in response to the satirical Charlie Hebdo depictions of Muhammed, and possible reproductions of such in other newspapers, which are valid satire and did not come from a place of hate.

Personally, I am a believer in the principle of freedom of speech. I don't just think that governments should not attempt to coerce or silence people in this way, I think us as individuals or groups should not do it either. I believe this because I think that freedom of speech is one of the foundations of a free society, and if we are truly to believe in it we should follow it ourselves and not just expect governments to (which apparently a lot of Irish people do not agree with, if the famine tv show controversy is anything to go by.) I am not advocating that there should be some law against lobbying, petitioning, protesting to silence some kind of art or satire, I am simply pointing out that it's not something you should do if you say you believe in freedom of speech.

I'll reiterate that I think there should be some limitations to free speech, specifically where it will incite violence or an immediate dangerous situation (shouting 'fire' in a packed cinema, etc.). Again, I do not believe the depictions of Muhammed are covered in these limitations.

I'll also make clear that I think Muslims have every right to be annoyed, disgusted, hurt, etc. I am in no way disputing that and completely understand how these cartoons are offensive to them. My point is that while you can be all these things, I believe it should in no way over-ride someone else's freedom of speech.

The thought occurred to me that perhaps my concept of free speech as I have outlined is incompatible with Islam as it is generally practiced today.

So I suppose my feeling is that I would really like the hear a Muslim say that although they disagree with depictions of Muhammed, they recognise that people should be free to do it. I have not come across this anywhere however and decided to come here to ask any Muslims (Irish or otherwise) if they would say so.


Sorry for the long post and thanks in advance!

Defender OF Faith

Thanks for your well thought out post my friend, I would like to begin by drawing a distinction between the freedom of speech and the freedom of insult, I understand that in a liberal society, freedom of insult and blasphemy is an essential part of liberty, what am going to present however is whether the latter is truly needed for the overall benefit of society or not and what I as a Muslim have to say about it.

I totally agree that there should be some restrictions on the freedom of speech in fact, the concept of free speech does not exist anywhere in its absolute form. We have defamation and sedition laws that put a limit to what we say. In the UK the public order act makes "Threatening abusive or insulting words" an offence, in Australia the commonwealth criminal code makes it an offence "to use a postal or civil service in a way that reasonable person would regard as offensive"

Free speech is upheld as the most basic value for specific ends, to allow profession of ideas, ability to account government and preaching the truth; do these noble ends require the freedom to insults?. In Islam, to mock, provoke and agitate beliefs and people is not acceptable. As all people have red lines, all views and cultures are sensitive with respect to what they have held dear. I don't think insults are an acceptable mode of interacting for mature self-respecting people. Insults offers nothing to society except hate & divisiveness, it's not require for the pursuit of truth, open inquiry or accounting governments.

There are among the Muslims those who do not object to depictions of Muhammad(pbuh) but what unites all the Muslims together is the vulgar manner through which he was depicted, and I really appreciate your understanding of why are Muslims angry.

“None of us believes in an untrammeled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn. Let's be clear: I agree there is no justification whatsoever for gunning down journalists or cartoonists. I disagree with your seeming view that the right to offend comes with no corresponding responsibility; and I do not believe that a right to offend automatically translates into a duty to offend. And why have you been so silent on the glaring double standards? Did you not know that Charlie Hebdo sacked the veteran French cartoonist Maurice Sinet in 2008 for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark? Were you not aware that Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published caricatures of the Prophet in 2005, reportedly rejected cartoons mocking Christ because they would "provoke an outcry" and proudly declared it would "in no circumstances... publish Holocaust cartoons"?*

*http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html

Therefore a Muslim recognizing the rights to publish vulgar,offensive & insulting cartoons depicting his prophet is for him to recognize freedom of insult, which is not accepted in Islam, our Prophet dictated that we should “not slander, curse, or speak in an obscene or foul manner.” He also said a Muslim should " speak good (khair) or remain silent." If you want to criticize an individual ideology common sense dictate that you do not insult them, as by doing this they will naturally become defensive, and we will go nowhere like this.

It's important to note that in a liberal country that allows freedom of insults and blasphemy, as a Muslim living in a country that permit this right, I will not recognize this right as it's against my faith nor will I impose my beliefs on them, for example in the upcoming marriage referendum, if homosexuals do not receive equal rights for marriage, many people may not recognize this right but this does not by any mean allow them to harm those that think otherwise.

By agreeing to live in that country I also agree to follow and be judged by its laws and constitution, so long as it allow me the freedom to practice my faith, otherwise a Muslim is obliged to migrate from a land which prohibits him from practicing his faith.

To conclude we Muslim believe in the right and freedom of speech in an intellectual non-insulting manner which will bring forth a benefit to society and community. Stifling of serious debate is unacceptable in Islam, critique of any ideas or belief is allowed but insult of any belief or people is not.

To point out that there was a discussion in the "Ask about Islam thread" regarding how insults are to be identified ,who should identify them and how should they be stopped, which may be of interest to you

Benny_Cake

There is a terrific thread on Reddit about this with thoughtful responses from a wide variety of Muslims:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2rqb6r/muslims_of_reddit_are_you_offended_when_someone/

I'm not a Muslim. I ran a Google Images search on Charlie Hebdo though and honestly, I did find some of the depictions offensive. As much as there is a right to offend, I think that someone has a right to feel offended and it's better to be honest about that. My response to that feeling is to look away and to remember that it is those who lost relatives in this attack are the real victims here. Bad taste isn't deserving of death, or anything close to it. In that regard, Je suis Charlie.

I hope that Christians, Muslims, Jews, and people of other faiths and no faith can put our hard-won freedom of speech to good use in the time ahead in talking to each other. It's extremely depressing to see people on Boards and elsewhere using this as an excuse to indulge their hobby horse of blaming all the ills of the world on religion in general and Islam in particular. I know way too little about Islam and I plan to learn more - at least that's something positive I feel that I can do.

looksee

I do not any great enthusiasm for satirical cartoons, whether of Mohammed, Jesus, politicians or other public figures. I do not see why people would go out of their way to be offensive to groups of people. This in spite of the fact that I have no religious beliefs and have good reason to be fairly exasperated with religion and its adherents.

However, I also accept that this is not a reason to ban cartoons or other satirical material. If there were to be rules saying you cannot depict certain figures in an unflattering way who would decide where this would stop? Jesus cannot be depicted satirically because this would offend Christians, Mohammed similarly for Muslims, Joseph Smith for Mormons, and so on through leaders of various countries and such dignitaries as the Pope, the Dalai Lama, and managers of first division football teams.

Yes ok, I am mixing religious beliefs with nonsense there, but who decides where the right to take offence stops? Or starts. You can quote the Quran and establish without doubt that these kinds of images are offensive to you, but outside of Muslim countries you have no control over whether people are concerned about offending you. Then there are Muslims in the UK who demonstrate holding signs saying 'British Police go to hell' and 'Sharia Law in Britain' etc, they have a right under free speech to do that, if we want to go down the road of not offending people then they should be arrested/shot/beaten or whatever.

I found it disturbing and oppressive to find myself in the entrance to a shopping centre in the English midlands with myself the only female not in a burqa (out of around 30 or so people) - and in most cases the eye veil as well, and all of them accompanied by a man. That is freedom of expression, and is permitted whether or not the majority of the population finds it offensive.

Muslims have that freedom of expression in spite of native, generally negative reaction to it (and in almost all cases the principal objection is to not being able to see the face that we are dealing with, that goes against western courtesy. You would even be expected to remove sunglasses when communicating with a westerner, as they expect to be able to see your eyes).

To follow that to its logical conclusion, if you insist that cartoons of Mohammed should be banned out of respect for your sensitivities, you would have to accept that Muslin women should show their faces out of respect for our sensitivities. Can you see how complicated it gets when you try to impose your local rules on a wider population?

Standman

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Thanks for your well thought out post my friend, I would like to begin by drawing a distinction between...

Hi Defender Of Faith, thanks again for the reply.

I think there is no need for a distinction between freedom of speech and freedom to insult, as they go hand in hand.

EG: At least one person on the planet is highly offended, disgusted even, at the idea that a man from the middle east called Muhammed is a prophet. No doubt it is offensive to many Muslims for someone to state that Muhammed is not a prophet.

If we were to have no freedom to insult then the only option here is to silence both of these groups. Islam, or any belief, essentially depends on the freedom to insult in order to exist.

This does not mean that we should all just go around insulting each other for no reason. I agree with the part of that article you quoted, in that the right to offend does not equal to a duty to offend. People often seem to confuse the idea of rights and duties. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

An example of this is the Westboro Baptist Church in America who protest funerals and carry offensive signs. I believe they should be able to do what they are doing, but I would not in a million years do it myself as I completely disagree with their beliefs.

Another positive aspect of permitting insulting expression is that it allows us to spot and challenge people who harbour negative, intolerant and/or destructive ideas. A great side effect of the Westboro Baptist Church protests was the counter protests advocating tolerance and respect that sprung up wherever they went.

Now regarding cartoons, one of the Charlie Hebdo depictions of Muhammed show him about to be beheaded by a member of Isis, under the heading "If the Prophet Returned". Is this specific cartoon insulting to you?

To me, it's apparent that the target of this cartoon is ISIS, and it is showing them to be hypocrites who would kill their own prophet were he to return. Now unless you are completely against any cartoon of Muhammed no matter what the context, it would be hard for me to understand why you would find this specific depiction personally insulting.

Again, I agree that simply hurling abuse at someone offers nothing constructive to any debate, but there is a difference between that and simply expressing something that someone may find offensive.

Comedy and satire are important parts of serious discourse about serious subjects. They can be insulting to people but can at the same time be positive things which can convey more about an issue/opinion, in a more concise and illuminating manner than many pages of a well researched, in depth article. Add to this that the often disarming nature of comedy and humour can sometimes get a person who would normally be completely closed-minded about an issue to reflect on their beliefs and become more willing to entertain new positive ideas.

I stated in my OP that I would like to hear a Muslim say that people should be free to draw Muhammed even if they disagree. I said this because I want to know that Muslims living here are willing to allow others the same rights that allow them hold and express their beliefs openly. I want this because if the average Muslim does not allow for it, then my hope that the growth of Islam in Ireland is a positive thing will be greatly diminished.

superelliptic

Standman wrote: »

Hi Defender Of Faith, thanks again for the reply.

I think there is no need for a distinction between freedom of speech and freedom to insult, as they go hand in hand.

EG: At least one person on the planet is highly offended, disgusted even, at the idea that a man from the middle east called Muhammed is a prophet. No doubt it is offensive to many Muslims for someone to state that Muhammed is not a prophet.

If we were to have no freedom to insult then the only option here is to silence both of these groups. Islam, or any belief, essentially depends on the freedom to insult in order to exist.

This does not mean that we should all just go around insulting each other for no reason. I agree with the part of that article you quoted, in that the right to offend does not equal to a duty to offend. People often seem to confuse the idea of rights and duties. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

An example of this is the Westboro Baptist Church in America who protest funerals and carry offensive signs. I believe they should be able to do what they are doing, but I would not in a million years do it myself as I completely disagree with their beliefs.

Another positive aspect of permitting insulting expression is that it allows us to spot and challenge people who harbour negative, intolerant and/or destructive ideas. A great side effect of the Westboro Baptist Church protests was the counter protests advocating tolerance and respect that sprung up wherever they went.

Now regarding cartoons, one of the Charlie Hebdo depictions of Muhammed show him about to be beheaded by a member of Isis, under the heading "If the Prophet Returned". Is this specific cartoon insulting to you?

To me, it's apparent that the target of this cartoon is ISIS, and it is showing them to be hypocrites who would kill their own prophet were he to return. Now unless you are completely against any cartoon of Muhammed no matter what the context, it would be hard for me to understand why you would find this specific depiction personally insulting.

Again, I agree that simply hurling abuse at someone offers nothing constructive to any debate, but there is a difference between that and simply expressing something that someone may find offensive.

Comedy and satire are important parts of serious discourse about serious subjects. They can be insulting to people but can at the same time be positive things which can convey more about an issue/opinion, in a more concise and illuminating manner than many pages of a well researched, in depth article. Add to this that the often disarming nature of comedy and humour can sometimes get a person who would normally be completely closed-minded about an issue to reflect on their beliefs and become more willing to entertain new positive ideas.

I stated in my OP that I would like to hear a Muslim say that people should be free to draw Muhammed even if they disagree. I said this because I want to know that Muslims living here are willing to allow others the same rights that allow them hold and express their beliefs openly. I want this because if the average Muslim does not allow for it, then my hope that the growth of Islam in Ireland is a positive thing will be greatly diminished.

I agree with this 100%.

In the case of religious organisations satire is of paramount importance because it prevents people/ groups from not taking themselves so seriously. When no one questions the things that they are told they absolutely must take on faith, then you end up in a very regressive society indeed, so if satire can help prevent that happening in France, or even here in Ireland then it is not something to stop doing simply because people may get offended.

Or in the words of steven fry: You're offended? So fu**ing what? what a pointless statement! :pac:

JohnBee

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I would like to begin by drawing a distinction between the freedom of speech and the freedom of insult

This is a non existent distinction as has been stated. Insult/speech are not exclusive sets, indeed freedom of insult is a subset of freedom of speech. There can only be freedom of speech, or not.

looksee

Standman wrote: »

To me, it's apparent that the target of this cartoon is ISIS, and it is showing them to be hypocrites who would kill their own prophet were he to return. Now unless you are completely against any cartoon of Muhammed no matter what the context, it would be hard for me to understand why you would find this specific depiction personally insulting.

.

You are missing the point that Islam proposes that any depiction of any living thing is forbidden, so it is not just satirical cartoons, any depiction is a problem.

Edit: It just occurred to me to check up newspapers in Islam countries, I picked the most restrictive on that I could think of, Saudi Arabia, and the paper is covered in photographs? I also checked a specifically Islam newspaper in the UK. How are these not images?

Defender OF Faith

looksee wrote: »

You are missing the point that Islam proposes that any depiction of any living thing is forbidden, so it is not just satirical cartoons, any depiction is a problem.

Edit: It just occurred to me to check up newspapers in Islam countries, I picked the most restrictive on that I could think of, Saudi Arabia, and the paper is covered in photographs? I also checked a specifically Islam newspaper in the UK. How are these not images?

Your are talking about photography here which is a different issue:
"Photography as a medium of communication or for the simple, innocent retention of memories without the taint of reverence (shirk) does not fall under the category of forbidden Tasweer which means innovating the features of a person , while the only one who can do that is Allah...... It all depends on the use and function of it. If it is for educational purpose and has not been tainted with the motive of reverence and hero worship, there is nothing in the sources to prohibit it."

http://www.onislam.net/english/culture-and-entertainment/q-and-a/434638-photography-in-islam.html?A=

Standman wrote: »

Comedy and satire are important parts of serious discourse about serious subjects. They can be insulting to people but can at the same time be positive things which can convey more about an issue/opinion, in a more concise and illuminating manner than many pages of a well researched, in depth article. Add to this that the often disarming nature of comedy and humour can sometimes get a person who would normally be completely closed-minded about an issue to reflect on their beliefs and become more willing to entertain new positive ideas.

I am pretty much in agreement with what you have said, yet most of the depiction of prophet Muhammed(pbuh) were not done in a way meant to open a debate or start a conversation it was simply done to upset people and this is the kind of conversations we would like to avoid.

Corey Saylor a US Muslim convert & Imam, makes some really good points in the following interview he had with the BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30823526

JohnBee

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I am pretty much in agreement with what you have said, yet most of the depiction of prophet Muhammed(pbuh) were not done in a way meant to open a debate or start a conversation it was simply done to upset people and this is the kind of conversations we would like to avoid.

Not really. Perhaps it is exactly for humor and satire. Many religions were the subject of said cartoonist. And yet only one religion is blowing people up.

Surely while it is logical for Muslims to obey the Quran if that is what they choose and believe, it is illogical to apply it to non Muslims as non-Muslims do not believe that it actually is the word of god. Otherwise really what you are stating is that even non-Muslims should be subject to the Quran.

Standman

That's a great interview! Thanks for that. Here's the part that says exactly what I wanted to hear:

Corey Saylor: As an American I don't like it when people burn the flag. As a Muslim we're taught not to depict the prophet Muhammed, so that has to be in there as well in all honesty. But I will say that I defend their right to do whatever they want to do, with my dying breath.

Interviewer: So, although you don't like it, you wouldn't support those who say they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Corey Saylor: No they have the right to do it, and they should be allowed to do it. That's what open discussion in a free society is about. The second you start restricting that - who gets to choose who gets to say what and who doesn't? - you have a huge problem..

I assume by the fact you had positive things to say about this interview means that you also agree with him, Defender Of Faith?

It's really great to hear a Muslim say that and I hope this is a common view in Muslim communities, especially here in Ireland.

Defender OF Faith

JohnBee wrote: »

Not really. Perhaps it is exactly for humor and satire. Many religions were the subject of said cartoonist. And yet only one religion is blowing people up.

Surely while it is logical for Muslims to obey the Quran if that is what they choose and believe, it is illogical to apply it to non Muslims as non-Muslims do not believe that it actually is the word of god. Otherwise really what you are stating is that even non-Muslims should be subject to the Quran.

True I fully agree, even in the Islamic Sharia, Islam does not compel non-Muslims citizens living in Muslim lands to be ruled by Islamic Laws. They are exempt from paying the zakah[compulsory act of Charity for all Muslims.] Also, Islamic Law requires military duty from able Muslims, but non-Muslims are exempt from it, even though it is of benefit to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
In return for these two exemptions, non-Muslim citizens pay a nominal tax known as jizya. Sir Thomas Arnold wrote, ‘The jizya was so light that it did not constitute a burden on them, especially when we observe that it exempted them from compulsory military service that was an obligation for their fellow citizens, the Muslims.*

Islam also permitted non-Muslims to observe their civil law in matters such as marriage and divorce. Regarding criminal justice, Muslim jurists would pass sentences on non-Muslims in issues considered sinful in their religion such as theft, but exempted them from issues they held to be permissible such as drinking wine and eating pork

*Arnold, Thomas, ‘Invitation to Islam,’ p. 77
source: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/374/viewall/

Standman wrote: »

That's a great interview! Thanks for that. Here's the part that says exactly what I wanted to hear:

I assume by the fact you had positive things to say about this interview means that you also agree with him, Defender Of Faith?

It's really great to hear a Muslim say that and I hope this is a common view in Muslim communities, especially here in Ireland.

For the brother to be a US citizen who happens to be a convert to Islam he clearly understand western & Liberal values regarding the issue more then I do, as the brother said "They have the right to do it" while I might dislike it, I recognise that because they have the right to do it, no threat should stop them from not doing it, if their wish is to purely insult with no interest in advancing a discussion, the Qur'an teaches that we should simply "sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that"[4:140] I should also connect this with what Mahdi have said that "a right to offend does not automatically translates into a duty to offend"

JohnBee

So defender based on last reply to my point, what you are saying is that since the Quran rule of no depiction of Mohammed only applies to believers, you recognize the rights of non Muslims to depict him?

Defender OF Faith

JohnBee wrote: »

So defender based on last reply to my point, what you are saying is that since the Quran rule of no depiction of Mohammed only applies to believers, you recognize the rights of non Muslims to depict him?

To begin with the Qur'an did not state that Muhammed should no be depicted. It was Muhammed(pbuh) that instructed his followers not to depict him because he feared he might be worshipped and at the same time to ward of idol worshippers. The prophet himself was aware that if people saw his face portrayed by people, they would soon start worshipping him, so he himself spoke against such images, saying 'I'm just a man.' Even though Muhammed(pbuh) physical characteristics were described accurately in numerous Islamic texts he was not depicted.

Referring back to your question I think I answered it in my last post when I said:

Defender Of Faith wrote: »

For the brother to be a US citizen who happens to be a convert to Islam he clearly understand western & Liberal values regarding the issue more then I do, as the brother said "They have the right to do it" while I might dislike it, I recognise that because they have the right to do it, no threat should stop them from not doing it, if their wish is to purely insult with no interest in advancing a discussion, the Qur'an teaches that we should simply "sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that"[4:140] I should also connect this with what Mahdi have said that "a right to offend does not automatically translates into a duty to offend

To add that just because you don't believe something to be sacred it doesn't automatically mean it's ok to insult & offend it.

BeerWolf

I'm in for COMPLETE freedom of speech, with the exception of those inciting violence... and completely against censorship - if you don't like something depicted or said, you should ignore it... that's their choice, regardless of it being in bad taste. And there should be absolutely no exemptions to it, aside from inciting of violence of course, else it is anything but what it represents. One shouldn't have to worry about "hurting someone's feeling" exercising that right, regardless of how distasteful it is.

I'd imagine such people offended would be foaming in the mouth, for example, should they get into a trolling session in an online game. You can either carry on listening to them and responding in kind, getting angrier and more offended... getting yourself worked up, or use the mute button to ignore aforementioned troll and be at peace, carry on with what you do...

And that goes for real life, ignore them by choice... Be the better person.

JohnBee

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Referring back to your question I think I answered it in my last post when I said:

To add that just because you don't believe something to be sacred it doesn't automatically mean it's ok to insult & offend it.

You actually didn't answer. Quoting someone else's answer is not giving an answer.

Also again, whether or not people are offended is irrelevant. If there is freedom of speech then Muslims should not say "I condemn the attacks in Paris BUT they shouldn't have made those cartoons". It should be "I condemn the Paris attacks, and whilst I dislike and disapprove of the cartoons and find them offensive, I recognize and uphold their right to do so". However, most condemnations do come with that very big BUT.

looksee

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

True I fully agree, even in the Islamic Sharia, Islam does not compel non-Muslims citizens living in Muslim lands to be ruled by Islamic Laws. They are exempt from paying the zakah[compulsory act of Charity for all Muslims.] Also, Islamic Law requires military duty from able Muslims, but non-Muslims are exempt from it, even though it is of benefit to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
In return for these two exemptions, non-Muslim citizens pay a nominal tax known as jizya. Sir Thomas Arnold wrote, ‘The jizya was so light that it did not constitute a burden on them, especially when we observe that it exempted them from compulsory military service that was an obligation for their fellow citizens, the Muslims.*

Islam also permitted non-Muslims to observe their civil law in matters such as marriage and divorce. Regarding criminal justice, Muslim jurists would pass sentences on non-Muslims in issues considered sinful in their religion such as theft, but exempted them from issues they held to be permissible such as drinking wine and eating pork

*Arnold, Thomas, ‘Invitation to Islam,’ p. 77
source: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/374/viewall/

You give a detailed answer, but it is not an answer to the question, the question did not ask about non-Muslims in Muslim lands, it asked about non-Muslims in general, and by implication, especially those living in their own lands. Could you answer this question please?

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

To begin with the Qur'an did not state that Muhammed should no be depicted. It was Muhammed(pbuh) that instructed his followers not to depict him because he feared he might be worshipped and at the same time to ward of idol worshippers. The prophet himself was aware that if people saw his face portrayed by people, they would soon start worshipping him, so he himself spoke against such images, saying 'I'm just a man.' Even though Muhammed(pbuh) physical characteristics were described accurately in numerous Islamic texts he was not depicted.

You just explained to me, in response to a point about photography that

Your are talking about photography here which is a different issue:
"Photography as a medium of communication or for the simple, innocent retention of memories without the taint of reverence (shirk) does not fall under the category of forbidden Tasweer which means innovating the features of a person , while the only one who can do that is Allah...... It all depends on the use and function of it. If it is for educational purpose and has not been tainted with the motive of reverence and hero worship, there is nothing in the sources to prohibit it."

so why would Mohammed find it necessary to forbid the portrayal of his face if it was not permitted anyway? And the whole argument about photography does suggest that 'the rules' can be adjusted any way you like if it suits! For example, why would you show a photo of a football team(in one of the newspapers for an Islamic audience), when it might encourage hero worship?

I am pretty much in agreement with what you have said, yet most of the depiction of prophet Muhammed(pbuh) were not done in a way meant to open a debate or start a conversation it was simply done to upset people and this is the kind of conversations we would like to avoid.

No, it was not done to upset anyone, it was done to make a satirical comment, the fact that people are upset by it is another issue. The magazine shows cartoons of many different cultures/religions, the followers of these religions or cultures might not be happy about the cartoons, but they don't react by killing people.

Defender OF Faith

looksee wrote: »

You give a detailed answer, but it is not an answer to the question, the question did not ask about non-Muslims in Muslim lands, it asked about non-Muslims in general, and by implication, especially those living in their own lands. Could you answer this question please?

Am sorry I was assuming that by giving the position of non-Muslims in Muslim land common sense would lead the one to believe that of course we cannot apply it to non-Muslims living in their own land, in fact we as Muslims living in their land, must confer to their laws as long as it does not prevent us from freely practising our religion.

looksee wrote: »

You just explained to me, in response to a point about photography that....
so why would Mohammed find it necessary to forbid the portrayal of his face if it was not permitted anyway?

To emphasize, in case people would think that; because he was the last prophet of God and the leader of the Muslim nation someone whom we love,follow and respect, would be an exception, especially when his physical description was accurately described in Hadith possibly giving them more incentive

looksee wrote: »

And the whole argument about photography does suggest that 'the rules' can be adjusted any way you like if it suits! For example, why would you show a photo of a football team(in one of the newspapers for an Islamic audience), when it might encourage hero worship?

I don't understand how showing a photograph of a football team taking into account your love & support for the team will lead to Hero-worship?! I don't mean to undermine your statement but I feel that you taking us for fools, you might wish to understand the concept of "Worship" first.

The article state that:
" It all depends on the use and function of it. If it is for educational purpose and has not been tainted with the motive of reverence and hero worship, there is nothing in the sources to prohibit it."
I don't think people who make and show such photos in these newspapers have the intention to praise and rise a person or a team to "God" status and aspire to have him be worshipped.

looksee wrote: »

No it was not done to upset anyone, it was done to make a satirical comment, the fact that people are upset by it is another issue. The magazine shows cartoons of many different cultures/religions, the followers of these religions or cultures might not be happy about the cartoons, but they don't react by killing people.

I dont think you have seen some of the photos take a look here:
http://avantblargh.tumblr.com/post/107422672105
Explain to me how are the first two depiction of Muhammed(pbuh) were not meant to be offensive to Muslims when a man we are instructed to love not only more then our mothers and fathers but more then ourselves is depicted in such a manner? what kind of satirical point you were trying to make? and did you find the only way to make it was in such a manner? also what kind of satirical point are you trying to make when you draw a politician who happens to be black as a monkey?!

Looking up the definition of Satire this is what I got:

"Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society"

I cant see how such cartoons where suited for the purpose above.

Just a few days ago French police arrested a French Comedian Dieudonne* over a gag on Facebook where he wrote "“Charlie Coulibaly,” around the time of CH massacre, and it was perceived as "support of a terrorist", I mean really? where is the Satire and free speech you claim to allow? if anything it proves that free-speech and satire does have its limits, and each country will impose its own restrictions on its version of "free-speech" in France insulting the head of the state is a crime and in 2008 Hervé Eon was convicted under this provision after he showed a banner stating “Get lost you prat” to the French President Sarkozy, something the French do not consider to be part of their "Freespeech".

*http://sunnewsonline.com/new/?p=100546

Ghost Buster

http://bibliobs.nouvelobs.com/actualites/20150116.OBS0129/representation-de-mahomet-l-islam-a-perdu-de-vue-sa-propre-histoire.html

so. A long history of depicting Muhammad in Islamic text. The issue is merely with idolatry and sculpture of Mo.
Well lads?

Defender OF Faith

Ghost Buster wrote: »

http://bibliobs.nouvelobs.com/actualites/20150116.OBS0129/representation-de-mahomet-l-islam-a-perdu-de-vue-sa-propre-histoire.html

so. A long history of depicting Muhammad in Islamic text. The issue is merely with idolatry and sculpture of Mo.
Well lads?

Actually there have been visual depictions of the prophet(pbuh) in the form of miniatures and pictures in the Iranian context, the Turkish context, the central Asian context. When the Muslim get upset over depictions of Muhammed(pbuh) it's because how one represented him rather then breaking the Islamic rule regarding the prohibition of depicting Muhammed(pbuh)

"In 871, a Muslim merchant to China recorded his encounter with the emperor who asked the merchants whether they could identify prophets from the pictures that he had.

At one point in the narrative, the merchant records: "I saw the picture of the Prophet Mohamed, God bless him and keep him, mounted on a camel with his companions around him on their camels, with Arab sandals on their feet and tooth sticks in waistbands, and I wept." “Ask him why he is weeping,” the emperor said to the interpreter.” “This is our prophet and our master, eternal peace be upon him.”*


The Muslim cultures were never necessarily hostile to images. the offence felt by the Muslim today when faced with images of the Prophet is not a case of him being depicted or not, but rather how he is depicted.

It all hinges on whether he is being portrayed as a man of violence, of sensuality, of depravity. All of these arise out of medieval Europe’s caricaturisation of Mohamed as part of their campaign against Islam. Because of this, the way many Muslim respond to images of Mohamed have less to do with a lack of creative imagination and disdain for free, artistic expression, and more to do with what they consider to be a perverted image of an exemplary man of God.

Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/muslims-have-embraced-images-of-the-prophet-mohamed-throughout-history--why-are-so-many-of-them-upset-now-9983412.html

JohnBee

DoF, you should be a politician. You have managed to respond to the same question multiple times to give the appearance of having answered a question whilst actually failing to answer the question.

I will phrase it as a multiple choice to make it easier. Please answer Yes or No to the following. I uphold the rights of people to freedom of speech, including the right to publish material which I might find offensive as a Muslim.

myfreespirit

I wish you luck in trying to get a straight answer on this one

alwald

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I dont think you have seen some of the photos take a look here:
http://avantblargh.tumblr.com/post/107422672105
Explain to me how are the first two depiction of Muhammed(pbuh) were not meant to be offensive to Muslims when a man we are instructed to love not only more then our mothers and fathers but more then ourselves is depicted in such a manner? what kind of satirical point you were trying to make? and did you find the only way to make it was in such a manner? also what kind of satirical point are you trying to make when you draw a politician who happens to be black as a monkey?!

Looking up the definition of Satire this is what I got:

"Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society"

I cant see how such cartoons where suited for the purpose above.

Just a few days ago French police arrested a French Comedian Dieudonne* over a gag on Facebook where he wrote "“Charlie Coulibaly,” around the time of CH massacre, and it was perceived as "support of a terrorist", I mean really? where is the Satire and free speech you claim to allow? if anything it proves that free-speech and satire does have its limits, and each country will impose its own restrictions on its version of "free-speech" in France insulting the head of the state is a crime and in 2008 Hervé Eon was convicted under this provision after he showed a banner stating “Get lost you prat” to the French President Sarkozy, something the French do not consider to be part of their "Freespeech".

*http://sunnewsonline.com/new/?p=100546

You have to understand that Satire is accepted in France, there are laws that protect newspapers and allow them to make cartoons about anything and everything, now CH's goal was not to offend anyone but it was to sell their newspaper and as such they always look for hot topics, topics that sell, you can't blame them for that.

If your faith is strong then you will look at the newspaper and you will know and understand that this cartoon does not represent your prophet and you will move on.

There is a need to say 2 things here, the first is to condemn what happened in France, to condemn any sort of violence and to condemn anything that goes against the law and to protect the freedom of speech no matter what your background or religion is. condemn them strongly because this is important for all the French. The second thing is that everyone is free to evaluate the type of humor that CH is doing, I personally didn't find their humor good and as such I am not a fan of their work however I respect what they are doing and I feel very sad for what happened.

About Dieudonne please read about the issue more and familiarize yourself with the French law before making a comment (that is wrong BTW), read this article to know more about the issue http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-dieudonne-charlie-hebdo-differently

And just to say, I like Dieudonne's work, he is talented and I laughed a lot at many of his shows, but to write what he wrote is unacceptable, how can somebody support a man that just killed innocent people? this is beyond me.

Defender OF Faith

JohnBee wrote: »

DoF, you should be a politician. You have managed to respond to the same question multiple times to give the appearance of having answered a question whilst actually failing to answer the question.

I will phrase it as a multiple choice to make it easier. Please answer Yes or No to the following. I uphold the rights of people to freedom of speech, including the right to publish material which I might find offensive as a Muslim.

Yes if the law of the land I live in allow the publication of such material I do uphold the rights of the Citizens to such freedom.

In Islam obedience to the law of the land is a religious duty. The Qur'an commands Muslims to remain faithful to not only Allah and the Prophet Muhammad (saw), but also the authority they live under:

O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority over you (Ch.4: V.60).

Any country or government that guarantees religious freedom to followers of different faiths (not just Islam) must be owed loyalty. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) stressed this point when he said:

‘One who obeys his authority, obeys me. One who disobeys his authority, disobeys me.’ (Muslim)

At the same time I will respond to such offence in the way Islam taught us to respond to offence and insult and that's certainly not to cause harm and incite violence, but through a spiritual academic and intellectual response.

myfreespirit

The answer in post number 24 in response to the question "Please answer Yes or No to the following. I uphold the rights of people to freedom of speech, including the right to publish material which I might find offensive as a Muslim", is not a simple Yes or No.
It is qualified by an 'if'.

So, it prompts the question as to what the poster would say or do if the law of the land he lived in forbade such freedom to satirise Islam with penalties such as flogging or long jail sentences along with punitive fines (such as the case in Saudi Arabia of blogger Raif Badawi currently) for anyone who dared to publish such satire?

Is your answer Yes or No in this case? I.e. will you always uphold the right of people to freedom of speech, including the right to publish material which you might find offensive as a Muslim.

whydoc

News:
Anti-Israel cartoon breached standards, Australian press organization finds !
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.638240

Defender OF Faith

whydoc wrote: »

News:
Anti-Israel cartoon breached standards, Australian press organization finds !
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.638240

Goes to show that each country will impose its restriction on freedom of speech in a way that will protect its values,culture and society.

In France making fun of the French flag or anthem is a crime that is punishable by jail time and a fine! clearly this is not part of their freedom of speech

The director of Paris match was fired because he published pictures of Nikolas Sarkozy's wife with another man in New York, what happened to this man freedom of speech?

In 2005 ‘Aides Haute-Garonne’ organized an informative evening about the prevention of the HIV-AIDS. The prospectus contained a head-and-shoulders image of a woman wearing a nun’s bonnet and two pink condoms. On the grounds that the prospectus insulted a group because of its religion, a court convicted Aides Haute-Garonne.

Charlie Hebdo fired a Cartoonist Sine for drawing an anti-Semitic Cartoon, that depicted the Son of Sarkozy converting to Judaism for financial reasons which is viewed as a ridicule of Judaism in 2009 what happened to his freedom of speech?

These are but a few examples of the restrictions imposed on Freedom of Speech to protect some of France values and heritage.

Now to myfreespirit's question

"So, it prompts the question as to what the poster would say or do if the law of the land he lived in forbade such freedom to satirise Islam with penalties such as flogging or long jail sentences along with punitive fines (such as the case in Saudi Arabia of blogger Raif Badawi currently) for anyone who dared to publish such satire?

Is your answer Yes or No in this case? I.e. will you always uphold the right of people to freedom of speech, including the right to publish material which you might find offensive as a Muslim."

I will limit your definition of an offensive to something we Muslim universally agree to find offensive as other then that what one might deem an offensive can be a very subjective matter, and by publishing materials we find offensive I will assume you are speaking of our Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) by portraying the most beloved Human to us, as a man of violence, of sensuality, and depravity.

There are some limits to Freedom Of Speech imposed by each state as I mentioned above to protect its core values and institutions, and to us Muslims this limit is our prophet(pbuh) you can criticize him using proof and evidence and write books as to why you dont consider him a prophet of God but to Insult him by drawing a valugar image of Him (pbuh) is what we dont deem acceptable, it's more beloved to me to have my face spatted on and stamped then have my prophet insulted in such a manner.

You have seen the response of the Muslim world when the Danish Cartoons where published, just a few days ago nearly 1 Million people gather in Chencnya in protest over CH publication of Muhammed Cartoon, asking me whether I agree with the publication of these Cartoons which I find offensive in the Heart of a Muslim State is ridiculous and a plain stupid.

Living in the West it seems that your Freedom of Speech allow the publication of such images, and we will respect such law as I said in my previous response, however in a Muslim land the freedom to publish such offensive images of our prophet are not granted, and in fact punishable by the State as Muhammed(pbuh) is the supreme head/leader of the Muslim state and constitution, and just like French laws makes it an offence to Insult the president who might not even be loved by all the french people alike; Muslims law makes it an Offence to insult the Prophet(pbuh) who is loved by every single Muslim alike.

The above is a Clip by Ahmad Al Shugairi one of the most influential Muslims in the Arab world whose word resonate nicely with what I presented so far with regard to responding to the offence while respecting the constitution of a country that allows me a freedom to practice my religion.

I though some might be interested to hear what the preachers of the Islamic world preach to their followers and how it resonate with the west Idea of "Moderate Islam" while in reality this is simply Islam.

English subtitles should appear in the bottom otherwise it's possible to turn them on from the settings ~

silverharp

the question is why should we care? If some ding bat invented a new religion and said all images are evil I would be under no compulsion to give him any notice. As far as most people here are concerned Islam is in the same position , its a made up religion (like all the rest) hence wanting to restrict my freedom in anyway to humour its adherents has no moral or ethical basis.

alwald

silverharp wrote: »

the question is why should we care? If some ding bat invented a new religion and said all images are evil I would be under no compulsion to give him any notice. As far as most people here are concerned Islam is in the same position , its a made up religion (like all the rest) hence wanting to restrict my freedom in anyway to humour its adherents has no moral or ethical basis.

I doubt that you read defender of faith's comment, he clearly said that the law of each country should be respected but at the same time he evaluates and rates the cartoons, which is his right, he doesn't like them so this is his choice, nobody is asking you to care for other's feelings.

In the Muslim world they don't like cartoons about their prophet and as such they don't allow them, again this is their law and in their land their law must be respected. Muslims are well aware that cartoons about their prophet are forbidden but its forbidden to them Muslims not to other religions or cultures because every faith is different and every religion is different.

silverharp

alwald wrote: »

I doubt that you read defender of faith's comment, he clearly said that the law of each country should be respected but at the same time he evaluates and rates the cartoons, which is his right, he doesn't like them so this is his choice, nobody is asking you to care for other's feelings.

In the Muslim world they don't like cartoons about their prophet and as such they don't allow them, again this is their law and in their land their law must be respected. Muslims are well aware that cartoons about their prophet are forbidden but its forbidden to them Muslims not to other religions or cultures because every faith is different and every religion is different.

Im not sure exactly what you mean by should be "respected"? , if a country or society is behaving in a backward way it should be called out as such.

alwald

silverharp wrote: »

Im not sure exactly what you mean by should be "respected"? , if a country or society is behaving in a backward way it should be called out as such.

As far as I am concerned you were talking about the cartoons, how not allowing cartoons about a prophet(s) in Muslim countries considered a backward way? basically what you are saying is that either all countries or religions will behave in a certain way (which is your way of thinking) or then they are backward? for me this type of mentality is evil and dangerous, because then I will ask you the question "who are you to decide if a mentality is backward or not?" "how do you measure it and what are the criteria?".

Edit: What I meant with respected is that when a person lives in a country, the laws of that countrie should and must be respected even if they go against your belief, for instance a Muslim who lives in France and is against the cartoons Must and Should respect the law, which means that the freedom of satire as written in the French constitution should and must be respected, this is not negotiable, likewise if a westerner will go to live/work in a Muslim country then this person should respect the law of that particular country, I hope that I explained it well enough.

silverharp

alwald wrote: »

As far as I am concerned you were talking about the cartoons, how not allowing cartoons about a prophet(s) in Muslim countries considered a backward way? basically what you are saying is that either all countries or religions will behave in a certain way (which is your way of thinking) or then they are backward? for me this type of mentality is evil and dangerous, because then I will ask you the question "who are you to decide if a mentality is backward or not?" "how do you measure it and what are the criteria?".

In this sphere I would judge a society or their laws based how or if religious rules are incorporated into state laws. So if someone can be taken to court for breaking a religious rule I would absolutely conclude that its a backward country. I guess the guy thats been beaten in Saudi at the moment would be good evidence that Saudi law is backward for instance
There are country indexes of freedom so that would be a start so I dont see the measurement issue? anything that would have North Korea or countries like Saudi at the bottom would be doing it for me.

alwald wrote: »

Edit: What I meant with respected is that when a person lives in a country, the laws of that countrie should and must be respected even if they go against your belief, for instance a Muslim who lives in France and is against the cartoons Must and Should respect the law, which means that the freedom of satire as written in the French constitution should and must be respected, this is not negotiable, likewise if a westerner will go to live/work in a Muslim country then this person should respect the law of that particular country, I hope that I explained it well enough.

no problems with that however we do see a lot of self censorship in ireland and the UK so freedoms are being reduced regardless of what the particular law is.

alwald

silverharp wrote: »

In this sphere I would judge a society or their laws based how or if religious rules are incorporated into state laws. So if someone can be taken to court for breaking a religious rule I would absolutely conclude that its a backward country. I guess the guy thats been beaten in Saudi at the moment would be good evidence that Saudi law is backward for instance
There are country indexes of freedom so that would be a start so I dont see the measurement issue? anything that would have North Korea or countries like Saudi at the bottom would be doing it for me.

I believe that religious rules are incorporated in state laws in most countries - I need to look at it further as I am unsure.

I agree that capital punishments are awful and backward and I dream of a day in which all these capital punishments will disappear from earth.

The freedom that we are talking about is about the prophet's cartoons, I still stand with the fact that if a country decides to ban these cartoons based on their faith or religion then this rule/law should be respected in that particular country, a capital punishment for not respecting this rule/law is way too severe and as such I believe that a fine for example or social work would be more appropriate.

silverharp wrote: »

no problems with that however we do see a lot of self censorship in ireland and the UK so freedoms are being reduced regardless of what the particular law is.

Can you give me some examples please?

silverharp

alwald wrote: »

Can you give me some examples please?

well here was Sky being cowardly in terms or protecting free speech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbwcBYT0DI

alwald

silverharp wrote: »

well here was Sky being cowardly in terms or protecting free speech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbwcBYT0DI

I believe it was Sky's decision to not show the cartoons, UK and France are two different countries with different traditions and culture, satire isn't part of the UK's culture as far as I am concerned so I don't think that Sky was put under pressure.

In addition the person talking in the video you posted "Caroline Fourest" is a very racist woman, I wouldn't listen to her or read any of her articles or books.

confusedquark

Standman wrote: »

I'll reiterate that I think there should be some limitations to free speech, specifically where it will incite violence or an immediate dangerous situation (shouting 'fire' in a packed cinema, etc.). Again, I do not believe the depictions of Muhammed are covered in these limitations.

I'll also make clear that I think Muslims have every right to be annoyed, disgusted, hurt, etc. I am in no way disputing that and completely understand how these cartoons are offensive to them. My point is that while you can be all these things, I believe it should in no way over-ride someone else's freedom of speech.

So I suppose my feeling is that I would really like the hear a Muslim say that although they disagree with depictions of Muhammed, they recognise that people should be free to do it. I have not come across this anywhere however and decided to come here to ask any Muslims (Irish or otherwise) if they would say so.

Howdy,

Firstly thank you for taking the time to write a well-thought out post. It makes it much easier to have a constructive conversation. I agree with much of what you say, but not all of it.

Whilst I don't agree with any depiction of the prophet, peace be upon him, there's a difference between a depiction of the prophet (pbuh) preaching to his followers, and one in which he has a bomb on his head (as was the case with one of the Danish cartoons a while back). I recognise that people in the west should be free to make depictions, but I also believe that they should be held to some standards of what is acceptable and what isn't, and I don't believe that "it's only cartoon satire" should give people the licence to publish anything they want. Cartoons are a very powerful medium, and plenty a racist/stereotypical message can be effectively communicated through them.

Yes, freedom of speech is not absolute and should have some limitations. The two main questions are - what exactly should the limitations be, and who decides when those limitations have been crossed.

Limitations can be defined by law (e.g. hate speech, inciting violence), and by press standards organisations (more on that below), and sometimes by public opinion - e.g. newspapers and TV stations sometimes issue apologies for something which their viewers find offensive or inappropriate, even if the actual piece didn't break any laws/standards.

That Australian paper having to apologise for printing a cartoon about the Israeli bombing of Gaza (from earlier in the thread) was an interesting case. In the adjudication issued, the Press Council states, “A linkage with Israeli nationality might have been justifiable in the public interest, despite being likely to cause offense. But the same cannot be said of the implied linkage with the Jewish faith that arose from inclusion of the kippah and the Star of David."

So it's ok to link an Israeli to Gaza attacks, but not a Jew? Even though one person can be (and usually is) both an Israeli and a Jew, bringing that person's religion into the equation of a political conflict is a not ok. I'm guessing this was because it was felt that the Jewish faith was being misrepresented.

I had a look into the Australian Press Council guidelines to see how they define what's acceptable and what's not, and they have a lengthy list of points, one of which is "Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest." The "substantial offence" bit aside, I'm guessing "prejudice" probably covered the above ruling.

We also have a press council in Ireland, and their code of conduct states the following:

"Principle 8 − Prejudice
Newspapers and magazines shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age."

Living in the west, I don't think it's reasonable for Muslims to try and stop every depiction of the prophet, peace be upon him. We can certainly politely request the media to consider not doing so because it is something that we're sensitive about, but I don't think we can force this issue. However, that said, I think we're well within our rights to object to depictions that do misrepresent our faith or are prejudicial. That's something which should probably be done on a case by case basis, and I think we should probably be addressing our complaints to the press council and let them independently decide what constitutes "grave offence" and what doesn't, and to be honest, that's probably the best way to handle it. If they decide that a certain depiction doesn't constitute prejudice, then we should accept it and move on.

schtinggg

alwald wrote: »

I believe it was Sky's decision to not show the cartoons, UK and France are two different countries with different traditions and culture, satire isn't part of the UK's culture as far as I am concerned so I don't think that Sky was put under pressure.

You asked for examples of self-censorship and were provided with, in my view, a prime example. Saying 'I believe it was Sky's decision to not show the cartoons' only reinforces what the previous poster said about self-censorship. As far as satire not being part of UK culture; you obviously don't remember Spitting Image, to name but one example.

mollymosfet

Having a basic respect for other people and their culture is important, even if there are parts of it that you don't like or are otherwise harmful.

We can judge our own trash(white western europeans) because we are part of that culture and can vouch for it. It's very hard for us to understand Islam and Muslim cultures from the outside. I am very deeply against any form of homophobia, transphobia, misogyny etc. but I also understand that these values are rampant in muslim countries because of a long history with colonialism. Our own Irish culture lags behind much of the rest of the europe, likely for much the same reasons. Our school system is a colonialist artefact, where else outside of here and the UK has uniforms in western europe?

Freedom of speech discusses in the west bother me - and sometimes discuss me. Because they focus on the right for the privileged to marginalise and oppress more often than not, and care less about people who can't even go outside as themselves(muslim hijabi, transfolk etc.) without running the risk of being assaulted or harassed. We don't talk about how people's freedom of expression is controlled in very meaningful ways - however when it's a bunch of primarily white men that get offed for far more complicated reasons than "Free speech"(France has a brutal colonial history in Algeria, and "satire" of Muslim cultures is seen as rubbing it in their faces) people care.

You hear very little about the Chapel Hill shootings on the other hand, or the transwomen and GNC kids that have been killed or driven to suicide for being themselves. Actual real, meaningful ways in which people live in fear because of how they express themselves.

While I do not believe in censorship as a general principle Muslim lives and dignity are more important than the right for some privileged white christians/atheists to demean other cultures. We need to be responsible. There are many drawings of a cartoonist standing up to a gun with a pencil - acknowledging the power of words and art. If only they showed responsibility with that power. There are many Muslims who've lost their lives and homes in the last couple of months, largely because of the backlash of the Charlie Hebdo shootings and the popularity of American Sniper.

This is why I often can't abide these discussions of free speech - they come across as deeply sheltered. I am not Muslim, but as a transwoman I know what it's like to lead a threatened existence, and some people very important to me are Muslim and I fear for their safety also.

AsianIrish

There were some good articles on this topic on jihad dot ie
I came across recently

niamhstokes

I guess Irish people were never politically correct nor should we ever try to be...so here goes


Charlie Hebdo depicted the Cross in pools of urine and also depicted the Virgin Mary in horrible ways. Absolutely disgusting and vile. Why would they want to do that????? They can intellectualize it all they want, it's horrendeous!

Now as a Catholic do I seek to kill them? No, of course not. I follow the teachings of Christ and pray for them that they may see the errors of their ways.

Christianity is open to ridicule and mockery on a daily basis. None is ever mentioned of the fact that of all the persecuted religious people in the world today, 80% of them are Christians. However the same people wouldn't dare mock or ridicule islam in the same way because of what?? they know they might be given death threats or in extreme circumstances killed. That's the reality !

Spirogyra

mollymosfet wrote: »

It's very hard for us to understand Islam and Muslim cultures from the outside. I am very deeply against any form of homophobia, transphobia, misogyny etc. but I also understand that these values are rampant in muslim countries because of a long history with colonialism.

You don't feel Molly that it has anything to do with the religion itself? which has nothing to do with Colonisation.

I feel though that religion reflects culture and it was then a largely misogynistic and homo/transphobic, violent world,slave ridden etc, the problem is that Islam for the most part has not adapted, it has not evolved to the contemporary world, in line with contemporary understandings of different people and identities.

Tom Dunne

Spirogyra wrote: »

Islam for the most part has not adapted, it has not evolved to the contemporary world, in line with contemporary understandings of different people and identities.

I think this is the core of the issue.

You have to remember that the vast majority (if not all) Muslim countries are developing nations. There are still a lot of very traditional attitudes, especially in terms of freedoms of speech. When an authority figure issues a declaration, it is not up for debate. And this applies whether it is a government leader, a boss in a workplace, or the patriarch of the household.

marienbad

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I think this is the core of the issue.

You have to remember that the vast majority (if not all) Muslim countries are developing nations. There are still a lot of very traditional attitudes, especially in terms of freedoms of speech. When an authority figure issues a declaration, it is not up for debate. And this applies whether it is a government leader, a boss in a workplace, or the patriarch of the household.

Not that we had forgotten that , but what account do you think we should take of It ?

For example should we refrain from doing or saying something that is legal in our country because it is disliked or offensive in another country ?

Tom Dunne

marienbad wrote: »

Not that we had forgotten that , but what account do you think we should take of It ?

You should remember that context is important.

marienbad wrote: »

For example should we refrain from doing or saying something that is legal in our country because it is disliked or offensive in another country ?

Absolutely not.

marienbad

Tom Dunne wrote: »

You should remember that context is important.

not.

What do you mean by this ? It is one of those phrases that sounds good , but what do you really mean ?

As far as I am concerned I can do and say what I like as long as I am within the law.

If you are saying that changes if I go to Saudi for instance , sure that is true . But that does not mean that my values are wrong and theirs are right , presumptuous as that sounds . But self preservation does come into it . We should still agitate as best we can though.

Tom Dunne

marienbad wrote: »

What do you mean by this ? It is one of those phrases that sounds good , but what do you really mean ?

I mean that when we, as in westerners, make declarations about certain cultures, we have to be careful not to project our beliefs, our culture and our biases.

marienbad wrote: »

As far as I am concerned I can do and say what I like as long as I am within the law.

And I fully agree.

marienbad wrote: »

If you are saying that changes if I go to Saudi for instance , sure that is true . But that does not mean that my values are wrong and theirs are right , presumptuous as that sounds . But self preservation does come into it .

Again, I agree.

marienbad wrote: »

We should still agitate as best we can though.

To you and me, perhaps. Take the Middle East, for example. Rulers essentially buy off the populace, who, for the most part, seem content to take their subsidies, take their handy-number jobs, takes all manner of handouts, so they won't agitate.

This is what I mean about context.

marienbad

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I mean that when we, as in westerners, make declarations about certain cultures, we have to be careful not to project our beliefs, our culture and our biases.



And I fully agree.



Again, I agree.



To you and me, perhaps. Take the Middle East, for example. Rulers essentially buy off the populace, who, for the most part, seem content to take their subsidies, take their handy-number jobs, takes all manner of handouts, so they won't agitate.

This is what I mean about context.

Sure we agree then , I know there is very little we can do other than pressurise governments and multinationals as to where and how they do business . A fading hope in todays world, but in the long run education and information will win out.

Tom Dunne

Here's an article from the BBC that puts things into perspective:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31986653

Spirogyra

Heard a Muslim speaker on a national radio station yesterday and he said that he would be surprised if there was any different opinions to his own within 'his community'...so this is what we mean by authority not being questioned? I mean there's how many Muslims in Ireland, how could one man assume himself to be able to speak for them all? it's as though freedom of though is not allowed within, that opinions are uniform.....

marienbad

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Here's an article from the BBC that puts things into perspective:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31986653

How does that show any perspective ?

katydid

Spirogyra wrote: »

Heard a Muslim speaker on a national radio station yesterday and he said that he would be surprised if there was any different opinions to his own within 'his community'...so this is what we mean by authority not being questioned? I mean there's how many Muslims in Ireland, how could one man assume himself to be able to speak for them all? it's as though freedom of though is not allowed within, that opinions are uniform.....

I heard a Waterford councillor yesterday saying that he was against gay marriage and that he was very sure that any Catholic would agree with him.

There are a lot of deluded people in the world.