Post by Joe K on Jan 11, 2015 14:00:43 GMT
Stop me if I've got this wrong, but the 'no images of Mohammed' thing comes, as I understand it, from a concern that the image/'icon' may be worshipped instead of the real thing. Now, as Giles Fraser has pointed out, the Charlie Hebdo cartoons could hardly be confused with a wish to venerate anything, but is it not a little strange that copies of the Koran are held in such high regard that if any person is suspected of defacing one in any way, his or her life may be at risk? Especially when the stricture to memorise the Koran is presumably intended to do away with the need for such mass produced 'imagery'? Isn't it learnt orally in some areas?
In any case, I suspect that two sentiments have been confused in the criticisms of Charlie Hebdo. There's the one above, based, on the face of it, on a fairly reasonable (for religion) argument, and there's the other, that the cartoons were offensive, and we must never cause offence, especially to religions. Looking at some of the cartoons that have been tweeted, it's fairly clear that a lot of Muslims, far from any radical fringe, must have been offended. Not simply because of the image, but of the context. The paedophile references, for instance, are guaranteed to offend. Why do that? If I had to guess, I might suggest it's a way of trying to hold up a mirror and say, "This shocks you? That's how we feel about stoning people to death for supposed adultery, and gang raping a girl because her brother offended tribal elders, and honour killings, and suicide bombers". I dare say that if Charlie Hebdo had published cartoons about those specfic things instead, and left images of Mohammed out of it, there wouldn't have been half the outrage. Perhaps, instead of gratuitously offending non-radical Muslims and thereby giving ammunition to the extremists (not forgetting that other religions and individuals were dealt the same treatment by CH), future criticism should be a little less circuitive, to avoid muddying up the waters more than language and culture will do anyway.
In any case, I suspect that two sentiments have been confused in the criticisms of Charlie Hebdo. There's the one above, based, on the face of it, on a fairly reasonable (for religion) argument, and there's the other, that the cartoons were offensive, and we must never cause offence, especially to religions. Looking at some of the cartoons that have been tweeted, it's fairly clear that a lot of Muslims, far from any radical fringe, must have been offended. Not simply because of the image, but of the context. The paedophile references, for instance, are guaranteed to offend. Why do that? If I had to guess, I might suggest it's a way of trying to hold up a mirror and say, "This shocks you? That's how we feel about stoning people to death for supposed adultery, and gang raping a girl because her brother offended tribal elders, and honour killings, and suicide bombers". I dare say that if Charlie Hebdo had published cartoons about those specfic things instead, and left images of Mohammed out of it, there wouldn't have been half the outrage. Perhaps, instead of gratuitously offending non-radical Muslims and thereby giving ammunition to the extremists (not forgetting that other religions and individuals were dealt the same treatment by CH), future criticism should be a little less circuitive, to avoid muddying up the waters more than language and culture will do anyway.
