Paris, anyone?

[Ian]

My understanding of the Islamic ban on any depiction of people (and I think animals in general) in art is that the artist would be usurping or immitating god's role in creation.

Indeed - I quite understand the reasoning behind the ban. But what I don't understand is why the response to the breaking of that ban is personal offence rather than concern about the perpetrator's chances of having a comfortable afterlife.

[Richard Barrett]

what I don't understand is why the response to the breaking of that ban is personal offence rather than concern about the perpetrator's chances of having a comfortable afterlife.

It isn't personal offence, it's perceived as blasphemy against Islam, and in the case we're talking about it has an adding insult to injury element because of course the majority of French Muslims are of Algerian ancestry and suffer relatively high levels of unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. And of course "concern about a comfortable afterlife" can be and has been interpreted by more than one religion as an incitement to murder, as in the massacre of Cathars at Béziers in 1209 - "kill them all, God will recognise his own."

[eighthobstruction]

It isn't personal offence, it's perceived as blasphemy against Islam, and in the case we're talking about it has an adding insult to injury element because of course the majority of French Muslims are of Algerian ancestry and suffer relatively high levels of unemployment, poverty and social exclusion.

....+ memories and intimate second hand knowledge of years of Algeria being a French colony <Truth and Lies>....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-7j4WVTgWc

[ahinton]

Where do you see a tendency to attribute all ills and societal failings to the West? It would surely be reasonable to attribute some ills and societal failings to the West, not just because of its colonial past, imperialistic present and so on, but also because this is the society we ourselves live in, most members of this forum anyway, and can reasonably expect to have some insider knowledge of and some small influence over. But all? That's a straw man really. And so many arguments around the present subject seem to hinge on a comparison with Christianity - "Christianity is like this so Islam really should be like this too" - which ignores centuries of divergent history and, yes, the asymmetrical political and economic relationship between the West and most people in the Muslim world. There is always some form of self-censorship, or, as I prefer to call it, respect, when talking about other people's religion. And the plain fact is that public Islamophobia, whether or not it comes in the form of "satire", is serving to make political Islam not less but more intolerant.

That's right - all of it. All that I would add is that, whilst comparing Christianity and the conduct of Christians in a Western country with Islam and that of Muslims in the same one is indeed as odious as it is unhelpful, the fact remains that Christians, Muslims and those of other religious persuasions or none live - and indeed some have chosen to move to - such a Western country and are accordingly subject equally to its secular laws.

It would be most unpleasant to have to think that all those who have reacted in a knee-jerk manner to the Paris atrocities by declaring "Je suis Charlie" whether or not they've ever read Charlie Hebdo) see that journal's conduct as whiter than white and beyond reproach when in point of fact it was not only tasteless but also irresponsible and unnecessary; it would likewise be helpful if all the "Je suis Charlie" people actually stopped to realise this and accept that they can express solidarity for the victims and their friends and families and deplore the murders without actually defending the magazine's publication decisions.

[Richard Barrett]

....+ memories and intimate second hand knowledge of years of Algeria being a French colony

Indeed. (The two killers at Charlie Hebdo were themselves of Algerian descent.)

[french frank]

Does this mean that the standards for what is and isn't racist are different in France and elsewhere?

Not a question of the geographical location but the socio-political viewpoint? People in this country take a different view of what constitutes racism from how I would undertand it, especially when they define it as an utterance which clearly implies racial stereotypes, regardless of whether any disparagement or mockery is intended.

Why should a principle of free speech be translated into a necessity to explore its limits through publication of material which can be predicted to inflame the sensibilities of an already oppressed minority?

I don't know where the statement of necessity comes from. More 'grist to the mill'?

There are two awful aspects to the reality of Islam. One is that of the 'oppressed minority' in many Western societies. The other is what we perceive as the hideous way that many Muslims treat women and minorities, especially non-Muslims, in their society. Should one automatically champion one cause in preference to the other? Or when one cause is proclaimed, do we immediately take the other side? In the case of Charlie Hebdo, is it the French 'oppressed minority' which is protesting? Are the radical Islamists acting in the interests of 'oppressed minorities' (for the record, I don't think so)?

[ahinton]

It isn't personal offence, it's perceived as blasphemy against Islam, and in the case we're talking about it has an adding insult to injury element because of course the majority of French Muslims are of Algerian ancestry and suffer relatively high levels of unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. And of course "concern about a comfortable afterlife" can be and has been interpreted by more than one religion as an incitement to murder, as in the massacre of Cathars at Béziers in 1209 - "kill them all, God will recognise his own."

Again, that's the point; such blasphemy may not contravene French law but that doesn't make it advisable and, in this case, it was exceedingly ill-conceived. "All is forgiven", indeed? This sounds to me like an olive branch wrapped up in a patronising package; it might be more telling if Muslims were to declare the same towards Charlie Hebdo, though there might seem to be no obvious reason why they should be expected to do so...

[Anna]

....+ memories and intimate second hand knowledge of years of Algeria being a French colony <Truth and Lies>....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-7j4WVTgWc

And, to understand the ingrained enmity that North African Muslims feel towards the French Jews (which has caused the rise of antisemitism in France) can I urge people to read this article: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015...to-france-jews

[Richard Barrett]

racial stereotypes, regardless of whether any disparagement or mockery is intended

I would say that the disparagement is inherent in the stereotyping, with the implication of viewing a person not as an individual but as an otherwise faceless representative of a racial group.

I don't know where the statement of necessity comes from.

The principle of free speech implies the possibility of saying what you like about anyone or anything you like (although in France holocaust denial is illegal so there are at least some exceptions) but many apologists for Charlie Hebdo appear to interpret this as some kind of duty to do so.

Should one automatically champion one cause in preference to the other? Or when one cause is proclaimed, do we immediately take the other side?

One should surely attempt to improve things by one's own example, which is precisely what Western military advantures in the Middle East are perceived as not doing; rather it is promulgating the idea that might is right and that people's lives, larticularly if they are dark-skinned people, are worthless. If we weren't invading countries and bombing wedding parties with drones we might be listened to a bit more sympathetically on subjects like women's rights.

[aeolium]

Where do you see a tendency to attribute all ills and societal failings to the West? It would surely be reasonable to attribute some ills and societal failings to the West, not just because of its colonial past, imperialistic present and so on, but also because this is the society we ourselves live in, most members of this forum anyway, and can reasonably expect to have some insider knowledge of and some small influence over. But all? That's a straw man really. And so many arguments around the present subject seem to hinge on a comparison with Christianity - "Christianity is like this so Islam really should be like this too" - which ignores centuries of divergent history and, yes, the asymmetrical political and economic relationship between the West and most people in the Muslim world. There is always some form of self-censorship, or, as I prefer to call it, respect, when talking about other people's religion. And the plain fact is that public Islamophobia, whether or not it comes in the form of "satire", is serving to make political Islam not less but more intolerant.

I think there has long been a tendency of some on the left to seek to attribute blame to Western institutions, ideas and policies and to refrain from examining the failures of states and ideologies outside the West - for instance with the admiration for Stalin's Soviet Union in the 1930s, and the embrace of Mao's Little Red Book in the 1960s. Even now, some in the left are more likely to discuss the Yugoslav civil war in terms of the iniquities of NATO's bombing rather than the genocidal slaughter of Milosevic and Mladic. And those are more likely to talk about Islamophobia than the violent and regressive policies of the more conservative Islamic states and the jihadi movements (is a cartoon of the prophet more damaging than the latest slaughter by Boko Haram extremists in Nigeria?)

If you really think that about Islamophobia then what do you think about Raif Badawi's writings, which I linked to above? Is that satire - by a Muslim - Islamophobic? Clearly the Saudi state thinks it is. What about Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, remembering that the death penalty fatwa remains in force against him? What about Tom Holland, who received death threats for simply making a documentary examining the evidence surrounding the rise of Muhammad? Are we coming to the point where the risk of offence is so great that most people will simply stop discussing any contentious issue around Islam at all? We can't be far off: newspaper articles discussing the historical depiction of the image of the Prophet, for instance in the Persian and Turkish traditions, will not reproduce any of the images for understandable reasons.

The Wahhabist strain in Saudi Arabia's Sunni Islam is not due to Western influence but to an C18 Islamic puritan who was very influential on the first emirate of the house of Saud. The intolerance and puritanism of al-Wahhab's teachings resonate today with many Muslims, particularly those inspired by jihad - and IS is influenced by Wahhabism. I think political Islam was growing more intolerant long before the presence of modern hostility to Islam in the West. It has been accelerated by the Western interventions in the Middle East since 2001, though it should be remembered that attacks on the West by jihadis, including 9/11, predated those interventions.

[Ian]

It isn't personal offence, it's perceived as blasphemy against Islam,...

It’s not a question of being *perceived* as blasphemy, it obviously *is* blasphemy. Blasphemy is the term given to the act of (at least) disagreeing with a tenant of religion.

But the question remains: Why does anyone take ‘personal offence’ at blasphemy. I can see why some authorities (or criminal loonies) will want to punish blasphemy for reasons other than hurt feelings. But I’ve been reading a lot about how, apparently, a large majority of muslins consider illustrations of Muhammad ‘personally offensive’ That’s the bit I don’t really understand. In fact, I wonder to what extent it is true? For example, I wonder if the 1.6 billion muslims in the world include the 5 million living in France? On Newsnight last night someone was saying that 75% of French muslims are probably more or less, atheist - wouldn't surprise me. Also I wonder how many muslims would remain muslim if they had the choice?

[Richard Barrett]

Aeolium, nothing you say convinces me that anyone is (to use your own words) attributing "all ills and societal failings to the West".

With regard to Kosovo, the historical record shows that brutality by the Milošević regime increased when the NATO bombing began, and, as Cockburn and St Clair point out in their book Imperial Crusades, while on the one hand NATO bombing "destroyed much of Serbia’s economy and killed around 2,000 civilians", on the other: "Although surely by now investigators would have been pointed to all probable sites, it’s conceivable that thousands of Kosovar corpses await discovery. But as matters stand, the number of bodies turned up by the tribunal’s teams is in the hundreds, not thousands, which tends to confirm the view of those who hold that NATO bombing provoked a wave of Serbian killings and expulsions, but that there was and is no hard evidence of a genocidal program." So there is a strong case for looking critically at both sides of the story.

Of course I believe that people should speak freely about any issue at all. But strains of Islam like Wahhabism would have a lot less purchase if enough people saw it as their top priority that human beings should live at peace with one another.

[Serial_Apologist]

And, to understand the ingrained enmity that North African Muslims feel towards the French Jews (which has caused the rise of antisemitism in France) can I urge people to read this article: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015...to-france-jews

Thanks very much, Anna. This might answer the question I asked several posts ago as to the whys of French anti-semitism.

[Serial_Apologist]

Why does anyone take ‘personal offence’ at blasphemy. I can see why some authorities (or criminal loonies) will want to punish blasphemy for reasons other than hurt feelings. But I’ve been reading a lot about how, apparently, a large majority of muslins consider illustrations of Muhammad ‘personally offensive’ That’s the bit I don’t really understand. In fact, I wonder to what extent it is true?

From watching street-conducted vox populi in various parts of the world since Charlie Hebdo on telly, it has been striking how many asked this question, individually off the tops of the heads instantly reply, "We love Muhammed more than our countries or even our families".

[Richard Barrett]

it should be remembered that attacks on the West by jihadis, including 9/11, predated those interventions.

There was also the matter of the first Gulf War, before that the West's military support of both sides in the Iran-Iraq War, and before that a repeated tendency to destabilise secular Arab regimes (including democratically-elected ones like Mossadegh in Iran), mostly in favour of more conservative and/or religiously-inclined ones, on the grounds that the secular ones were more likely to ally themselves with the USSR during the Cold War. None of which is to minimise your mention of the history of Wahhabism.