Paris, anyone?

[Frances_iom]

.. individually off the tops of the heads instantly reply, "We love Muhammed more than our countries or even our families".

it would appear to be the same psychological mechanism that caused North Koreans to weep at the death of their last leader, Russians to weep at death of Stalin etc - same thing is I suspect behind the Jesus 'cult' in the USA bible belt - catch is to an elightenment educated mind all are totally irrational and thus in many ways reasoning cannot work - maybe as in Irish Catholicism the revelation of the actions of those who exploit the system will have more sway.

[french frank]

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.

So 'I would say' that it isn't. To brand this as 'racism' is to trivialise a word which extends to mockery/hostility, aggression, violence and murder.

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.

That doesn't mean that it is a majority, or significant minority, view. Some people may think it a necessity, others not.

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.

Far be it from me to defend the West's military adventures in the Middle East. Though it isn't only the West that engages in 'adventures' and there might be an argument that the West retaliates to the 'adventures' of others. The problem of 'cultural differences' which one side or the other finds literally intolerable seems intractable.

[Richard Barrett]

To brand this as 'racism' is to trivialise

We aren't going to agree on this, I can see; but I don't think it is trivialised thereby, and I would go so far as to say that the events in Paris would tend to support this view.

That doesn't mean that it is a majority, or significant minority, view. Some people may think it a necessity, others not.

Obviously. But some of that minority have their hands on a printing press, as we see.

there might be an argument that the West retaliates to the 'adventures' of others.

If there is I would like to see it! - very many of the problems we see in the world have their roots in European colonialism and its aftermath.

[Ian]

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".

Yes, I know and I’m wondering what they mean:

If I say “I love Schubert” it would be understood that I mean I love his ideas (music)

Similarly, if someone says that they love Muhammad are they really loving his ideas or do they really mean they love the actual person?

If the former it must mean Muhammad’s claims and ideas are so important to them that they would sacrifice their country and family in order not to have to give them up. But the illustrations of Muhammed don’t put anyone anywhere near that hypothetical dilemma.

So why is the strength of their love relevant? Indeed, surely it is case that the stronger your conviction the less criticism should matter to you.

It would be reasonable (at least from a muslim perspective) to see the cartoons as the product of ignorance (we are all ignorant of most things) But I don’t understand why an acceptable reaction to ignorance is taking ‘personal offence’ - that puts you in a place where it is more difficult to dispel the ignorance.

[eighthobstruction]

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

I wonder how much this might be to do with many many of the immans in France (and UK) do not come from the indigenous country....and thus could have a different (more ancient/traditional) attitudes and motives, interpretations....and of course in some cases : more radical....often with a lack of the indigenous language complicating teachings/interprations even more....

[aeolium]

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.

But that is to ignore the role of Milosevic - and that of his Bosnian Serb allies Karadzic and Mladic - in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The ICJ in the Bosnia Genocide case found in 2007 that the massacre in Srebrenica was an act of genocide. Reported conversations of Milosevic showed that he knew of Mladic's intention to order the massacre. As to the one-eyed view of the world of some on the left, here is a reminder of the behaviour of the journal Living Marxism who accused ITN of distorting the history of the Bosnian conflict and lost an ensuing libel trial:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/mar/15/pressandpublishing.tvnews

and the furore over the Guardian interview with Noam Chomsky when the latter supported Diana Johnstone's revisionist book which inter al claimed that Srebrenica was not really a massacre:

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/chomsky_the_gua.html

The only relevance this has really to the present discussion is that some of the people only too ready to talk about Islamophobia now in the context of offending Muslims were just as ready to belittle and diminish the sufferings of Bosnian Muslims when it suited their agenda, even though the genocidal events in Bosnia really could be categorised as Islamophobia. It is I think a shameful episode of intellectual betrayal.

[Anna]

I wonder how much this might be to do with many many of the immans in France (and UK) do not come from the indigenous country....and thus could have a different (more ancient/traditional) attitudes and motives, interpretations....and of course in some cases : more radical....often with a lack of the indigenous language complicating teachings/interprations even more....

It would appear that is exactly the case, from what I heard on R4 with an interview of a French imam - that very few of the imams attached to French prisons are in fact French, the majority are from N. Africa. It seems that the prisons are where radicalisation, and conversion to Islam, is taking place. Couliblay was not born into a Muslim family but converted whilst inside, and the two brothers never showed any interest in religion until they too served sentences. French authorities don't break down data into ethnic groups but it is believed that 70% of the prison population are from immigrant backgrounds. (Will have to try and confirm that percentage)

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, I know and I’m wondering what they mean:

If I say “I love Schubert” it would be understood that I mean I love his ideas (music)

Similarly, if someone says that they love Muhammad are they really loving his ideas or do they really mean they love the actual person?

If the former it must mean Muhammad’s claims and ideas are so important to them that they would sacrifice their country and family in order not to have to give them up. But the illustrations of Muhammed don’t put anyone anywhere near that hypothetical dilemma.

So why is the strength of their love relevant? Indeed, surely it is case that the stronger your conviction the less criticism should matter to you.

It would be reasonable (at least from a muslim perspective) to see the cartoons as the product of ignorance (we are all ignorant of most things) But I don’t understand why an acceptable reaction to ignorance is taking ‘personal offence’ - that puts you in a place where it is more difficult to dispel the ignorance.

As you say, Ian.

I tend towards explanations more along the lines that Richard Barrett puts forward - namely that historically more recent events and international power relations, most of all the US and its allies territorial exploitation of the "developing world" for its own strategic purposes in turn expressing its mercantile interests, and the tendency for the disempowered people affected and let down by their own ruling classes - in one way or another US puppet regimes - to turn back to traditions predating Western hegemony along with its business empires, guns and bibles. Such a viewpoint might treat the love of religious figureheads you mention in Freudian terms of displacement and substitution for the "missing" father figure, common to all the monotheistic religions.

[Richard Barrett]

The only relevance this has really to the present discussion is that some of the people only too ready to talk about Islamophobia now in the context of offending Muslims were just as ready to belittle and diminish the sufferings of Bosnian Muslims when it suited their agenda, even though the genocidal events in Bosnia really could be categorised as Islamophobia. It is I think a shameful episode of intellectual betrayal.

I was referring specifically to the Kosovo situation of course, and absolutely not making any excuses for Milošević or his Bosnian Serb allies. I know this isn't really germane to the ongoing discussion, or maybe it is, but why do you think there are what you see as double standards, including from the usually reliable Chomsky, when talking about Bosnian Muslims as opposed to others of that faith?

[eighthobstruction]

It would appear that is exactly the case, from what I heard on R4 with an interview of a French imam - that very few of the imams attached to French prisons are in fact French, the majority are from N. Africa. It seems that the prisons are where radicalisation, and conversion to Islam, is taking place. Couliblay was not born into a Muslim family but converted whilst inside, and the two brothers never showed any interest in religion until they too served sentences. French authorities don't break down data into ethnic groups but it is believed that 70% of the prison population are from immigrant backgrounds. (Will have to try and confirm that percentage)

....was that r4 today....?

[Anna]

....was that r4 today....?

No, couple of days ago I think, possibly Monday (?) on the Today programme. I'll see if I can find it.

[Serial_Apologist]

No, couple of days ago I think, possibly Monday (?) on the Today programme. I'll see if I can find it.

Given that a similar position of non-English speaking imams said possibly to affect Koran readings passed onto Muslim novices in this country has not (so far) affected any relationship between religious insult and freedom of speech in Britain, it might be less germane to this discussion than one might suppose. In unpicking the political ingredients, much more pertinence might be attributed re alleged anti-semitism to the affecting of relations between ex-French colonised Muslims and Jews following the Algerian War and de-colonisation, as shown in the link you provided.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

there are some reductive and non-substantive issues to do with human cognition that should perhaps temper the use of 'stereotype' .... we do see things for what we think they are on the basis of a prototypical view and then just proceed as if the unique object is simply an instance of the category and we do this for human, animal and inanimate objects ... it shortens the time between recognising the tiger and running &c ...

we can require that a social process or procedure be fully rational and deliberative ere it comes to judgement but us poor primates jump afore we think ....


i was disturbed at how little attention was given by the media and BBC News to the funeral ceremonies of the main victims and how Netanyahu had captured the limelight ... seems to me that the essence of the incidence was the attack on journalists/cartoonists and the delicate balance between freedom of faith and freedom of thought

i am afraid that i have no respect for theocratic faith at all and dispute any claim based upon 'faith' in any deity or spirit and certainly strongly object to being asked to respect beliefs and practices that are mere superstitions in my view .... it just boils down to not wanting to hurt feelings and good manners and not much else really until the precepts and practices are urged for general adoption ..... the French concept of 'Laïcité' seems the ideal to me ....

[Cornet IV]

We aren't going to agree on this, I can see; but I don't think it is trivialised thereby, and I would go so far as to say that the events in Paris would tend to support this view.

Obviously. But some of that minority have their hands on a printing press, as we see.

If there is I would like to see it! - very many of the problems we see in the world have their roots in European colonialism and its aftermath.

The last assertion in itself is arguable. Nevertheless, given that it is almost one thousand years since Urban II declared "Mission Accomplished", it would not be unreasonable to suppose that some accommodation might have been achieved in the meantime. The fact that it hasn't and that there is no immediate prospect of raprochement, I have to conclude that I am fortunate to be no younger than I am.

[Serial_Apologist]

there are some reductive and non-substantive issues to do with human cognition that should perhaps temper the use of 'stereotype' .... we do see things for what we think they are on the basis of a prototypical view and then just proceed as if the unique object is simply an instance of the category and we do this for human, animal and inanimate objects ... it shortens the time between recognising the tiger and running &c ...

we can require that a social process or procedure be fully rational and deliberative ere it comes to judgement but us poor primates jump afore we think ....

Except that the prototypes have been long enough and sufficiently familiar in the landscape to be past readiness for unpicking or resorting to for the umpteenth time, methinks...

i was disturbed at how little attention was given by the media and BBC News to the funeral ceremonies of the main victims and how Netanyahu had captured the limelight ... seems to me that the essence of the incidence was the attack on journalists/cartoonists and the delicate balance between freedom of faith and freedom of thought

Moi aussi...

i am afraid that i have no respect for theocratic faith at all and dispute any claim based upon 'faith' in any deity or spirit and certainly strongly object to being asked to respect beliefs and practices that are mere superstitions in my view .... it just boils down to not wanting to hurt feelings and good manners and not much else really until the precepts and practices are urged for general adoption ..... the French concept of 'Laïcité' seems the ideal to me ....

The problem then lies in complicity, turning one's back for the sake of protocols one would not accept in one's own peer group, without abandoning such basic principles as solidarity.