No, I expect professional writers and drawers to be cautious and careful when it comes to some divisive topics.
This is sad but do we have the choice? Unfortunately, no.
Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
No, I expect professional writers and drawers to be cautious and careful when it comes to some divisive topics.
This is sad but do we have the choice? Unfortunately, no.
Anti terrorism centre reports would suggest that during the height of Al qaida there were the least antisemetic attacks in Europe and america by islamists/jihadis. Up until 2011 I believe.
The biggest threat has always been right wing attacks.
Professional writers as well? Don't you think it's fair that professional writers write excatly what they think about Islam and Muhammed? I wouldn't want professional writers to engage in self-censorship of any kind just to give special protection to Islam.
I don't believe it was. The occupation issue is quite specific and has only been applied to Israel in the main, including by Qardawi.
The occupation angle was most prominent with Syria in recent times and that is why the British govt was quite keen to emphasize "no boots on the ground". It also was linked to a hadith about the flags of khorasan, which again the British govt was keen to play down because it would have meant a lot more support for ISIS.
Further to that the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq has lead some commentators to say that 9/11 was a cause for some occupation.
Yes, I would include the material if it is pertinent to the curriculum and have in fact offended students before with things I have shown / said / taught. When you teach things like history and current events topics it is bound to happen. Ditto that for biology teachers. You don’t think Bio teachers know they’re gonna offend someone by showing evidence of evolution? You don’t think history teachers know we’re gonna offend someone by showing images of slavery / the Holocaust / police brutality / religion? That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be taught.
So are people proposing a ban to "overtly offensive" cartoons and caricatures? I wonder how and who can actually say what is too offensive and what isn't.
I kind of know what to expect when seeing people comparing cartoons about the Holocaust and Muhammad.It's as if one is an actual genocide, whilst the other is about a divisive figure with many questions about his authenticity, supposedly having some special powers or status by Allah.
It's perfectly reasonable to suggest all types of religions have been used as some sort of propaganda and indoctrination in the history of the human species, so why do we suddenly decide we should tread carefully and not call out for what they are?
I'm one of the people who has done that. I did that to make the general points about being offensive and that something being "just cartoons" is a silly thing to say as a blanket defense, not in any attempt to claim that charicaturing Muhammad and nazi propaganda is the same thing. Do you object to that or did you have something else in mind?
I'm perfectly happy with people protesting about whatever, it's a basic human right. I absolutely have a problem with physical attacks and murders on people based on "offensive cartoons". I also definitely have a problem with your post, because it seems you are slightly excusing and justifying said attacks due to "useless caricatures".
Bin Laden addressed his qualms for attacking in a letter.
His main beef was the support America gave to others who he felt were killing muslims around the globe.
Even with his bit about supporting Israel he didn't go into occupation territory. More about destruction of places like Iraq to strengthen Israel.
Well a bit of the discussion about this, not by you though unless I am mistaken, has involved the argument that Muhammad shouldn’t be shown at all. Hence me bring it it up. I realized “oh shit, I have taught about depictions of Muhammad...”
I don’t. The image is from a well publicized newspaper front page from about 15 years ago. It is part of the public discourse on the topic. A good way to teach them to deal with these things when they enter the real world is to provide a structured discussion about them in the classroom.
the same was said about the nazis and fascism in the 1930's
they were wrong then and you are wrong now
I am a big defender of all the civil liberties even in Covid times by the way, including the freedom of speech.
I am just saying any professional should be careful.
Where was it said?
He specifically cited presence of non-Muslim troops in the Arabian Peninsula, it was presented as the number 1 justification for al Qaeda’s declaration of war on America:
“The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations...
...for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.”
https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm
Why?
I'm perfectly happy with people protesting about whatever, it's a basic human right. I absolutely have a problem with physical attacks and murders on people based on "offensive cartoons". I also definitely have a problem with your post, because it seems you are slightly excusing and justifying said attacks due to "useless caricatures".
No, I didn't suggest that.
A caricature is useless in the sense it can hurt some people without this being necessitated.
I just totally disagree with even trying to compare the 2 cases. I don't know if using the "just cartoons" as a blanket defense is the right thing, but being able to produce political, religious, cultural or any other kind of satire is supposed to be at the core of every true democratic society.
As far as I am aware or understand the issue of drawing is actually wider than just Prophets and religious figures.
As I said I myself drew pictures as part of RE in my youth. My children wouldn't have and didn't simply due to an increased understanding on the issue. Drawing of religious deities is prohibited.
Islamic art tends not to have pictures of any living thing, although as you have said there are exceptions and they can be found under the label of "islamic art". What I'm talking about is the "rules" as I've come to understand them and not what some people may do.
The general principles is muslims don't have faces and depictions of animals etc on walls, this is from hadith. And it is discouraged to draw any person albeit a photograph would be allowed as it's an exact replication of the person, although some do differ even on that.
I'm confused, if you totally disagree with the comparison how can you be unsure about the "just cartoons" defense? They're both cartoons, if that defense is enough for one single cartoon then it's enough for any cartoon.
Yeah, I know. A separate point though is that the rules changed and didn’t used to be what they are now.
And besides that, to the topic of teaching controversial topics... if we expect these kids to grow up and be productive members of a democratic society, we have a responsibility to teach them about controversial topics and to teach them about how to discuss them and deal with them in a civil manner. Cartoons of Muhammad exist. They’ll continue to exist and continue to be produced. Ditto that for Jesus, Buddha, etc. Talking about those things is a part of living in a world where you are likely to be neighbors with people of different faiths.
Totally disagree with that and I'll leave it here, because it's obvious we will keep going in circles.
Did you not read my second sentence fully? I'm just saying that the wording of it leaves me uncertain, but by no means did I not make myself clear.
I am sure you get my point but as you know:
- There are some taboos subjects in any society.
- We live in violent societies
- Social media are omnipresent.
- People tend to overreact and feel easily attacked and mocked.
For example, if I were a teacher, I would think twice about the best way to speak about sensitive topics such as religion and racism
I was talking about professional writers. They should write excatly what they think.
So you really propose self-censorship, justifying it by saying we live in violent societies.
That's textbook totalitarian policy, if I ever saw one. But yeah, like you said, let's agree to disagree.political commentators and politicians at the time argued that we shouldn`t provoke the facists/ nazis by ridicule and satire.
Most notably Lord Beaverbrook through The Daily Express which he owned.
So you really propose self-censorship, justifying it by saying we live in violent societies.
You'd think we live in Pakistan.
I think you make a good point here in that surely a teacher who is planning such a lesson should get some advice on what they can include as acceptable content. Everybody knows that cartoons of the Prophet are controversial so he should have maybe sought some guidance.
I honestly think this is a very dangerous slope to be on. You see people forming feminist groups to protect women when they get attacked at night and if anyone suggested that it's their fault for wearing inappropriate clothing or being outside when they shouldn't be, there would rightly be an outrage.
Then you get opinions on other topics like these and it just makes me worried about the direction of public discourse in the future.
I did read it, that's what confused me. You're making a case for why some cartoons are important, not for why cartoons are fine qua cartoons.
Maybe I was unclear. I was asking for where it was said that writers and drawers should generally be cautious to defend nazis.
There's not a second in the day where this doesn't happen. Outrage happens in response, sure, in a sense, but outrage happens in response to everything and we don't have a 29 page here about it.
What's your views on the freedom of humanity mural by Mears One?
Okay, how else can I say it? The term "just cartoons" leaves me in two minds - on one side, like I said, being able to use caricatures and satire should be a cornerstone for any true democratic society; on the other, we have the means of propaganda and things like that can definitely be used with serious malice, especially when used by the government to justify their genocidal ideas. So as I said, I'm uncertain about how appropriate is it to call them "just cartoons" as a defense to it.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Do you believe women should be more careful and do you believe people should also be more careful when it comes to Muhhamad, because we live in "violent societies"?
First paragraph: You seem to me to be arguing for why some kinds of cartoons are important because of their message, not just because they're cartoons. Presumably you're differentiating between political satire at one end, pure entertainment in the middle and to once again bring it up drawn child porn at the other end. The fact that they're cartoons doesn't, to me, seem central to what you're arguing.
Second paragraph: Simply commenting on your dangerous slope. We're already at the point where people argue that women shouldn't dress a certain way, we've always been at that point and if anything have been moving up, so that would be at the current level and not at a metaphorical slope. Not saying that it's right, not saying that women are at any fault, not meant as any endorsement.
I understand now what you mean and you make a compelling point. It still leaves me uncertain, because there is a huge difference between satire made by an individual and a government enforced propaganda, so in the first case you can say "it's just a cartoon", whereas the second one can lead to seriously horrible implications and is in fact dangerous.
On the rest, I still don't understand the point of making your statement and how it fits in the discussion. Are you implying I am one of those people, who tell women to dress more appropriately, in order to protect themselves at night from sexual predators?
No, I simply meant that if you were saying that the attitude to charicatures of Muhammad might lead to a world where we people blamed what women were wearing for being abused or raped then that wouldn't be anything to worry about only in the meaning of we're already in that horrible reality. A slippery slope means that we're heading somewhere undesireable, but we're already there so it's a level field and no slope.
Oh, okay, I fully get it now. Sorry for being a dumbass.
I wasn't exactly saying that, but I get your point anyway, so maybe I should have worded my post better.I'm going by large-scale anti-Jewish terror attacks carried out between 9/11 and the mid-2010s worldwide. To the best of my knowledge, most prolific ones have been carried out by Islamists, and most of these in turn have been ascribed or linked to al-Qaeda: the synagogue bombings in Djerba and Istanbul, the Casablanca bombings (which targeted Jewish places among others), the Chabad house massacre during the Mumbai attacks, the hypercaché attack during the CH massacre in Paris. The perpetrator of Toulouse and Montauban also claimed allegiance to al-Qaeda, but it seems he was just inspired rather than actually affiliated.
As I said in the earlier post, since maybe 6-7 years this has been true. For the US in general this has also been true. Other than that, I don't think it is (see above).
Last edited: