Je Suis Charlie

[JeSuisCharlie]

You have the right to be offended. I have the right to believe in what I want. We should learn from the pupils that we can be aware of differing opinions without the cancel culture
Join me if you agree with three small words...

I'm sure there are Mormons who find the book of Mormon musical offensive. There was a complaint about a Cadburys advert for Easter eggs (portraying two men kissing) from a devout Christian who found that offensive. I find Turkey's withdrawal from the Istanbul convention deeply offensive. I find the reintroduction of the guardianship system by a Hamas Islamic court in Gaza painfully offensive. I find the fact that women who campaigned for the right to drive in Saudi are still in prison in this day and age so offensive that I cheerfully scream.

Lots of people find lots of things offensive. It doesn't give those people the right to persecute others or remove their right to freedom of expression or speech and certainly not to inflict violence or death on those they disagree with. Especially not for religious reasons.

If it's fine to ridicule Mormons without consequence then it is fine to ridicule Muslims. No religion should be off limits. I've never heard a decent rationale for why Allah shouldn't be portrayed on paper, I don't think hurt feelings and an implicit threat of violence count as a decent rationale.

Of course je suis Charlie how on earth could I be anything else?

@TooYoungToNotice
Very well said.

Agree, very well said @TooYoungToNotice

I am a Christian and often hear things I find offensive being said about my beliefs. I think those people should crack on with it. They have freedom to question anything they want and as long as I have freedom to practise my religion I don't need people who don't have the same beliefs to tiptoe around mine.
There are people from every religion experiencing actual persecution around the world and that is what should be tackled, someone disagreeing with me is nothing.

If someone is secure in their faith then why the need to threaten others who joke. The extreme reaction is never the way if a democracy. This is a free country

@TooYoungToNotice

I'm sure there are Mormons who find the book of Mormon musical offensive. There was a complaint about a Cadburys advert for Easter eggs (portraying two men kissing) from a devout Christian who found that offensive. I find Turkey's withdrawal from the Istanbul convention deeply offensive. I find the reintroduction of the guardianship system by a Hamas Islamic court in Gaza painfully offensive. I find the fact that women who campaigned for the right to drive in Saudi are still in prison in this day and age so offensive that I cheerfully scream.

Lots of people find lots of things offensive. It doesn't give those people the right to persecute others or remove their right to freedom of expression or speech and certainly not to inflict violence or death on those they disagree with. Especially not for religious reasons.

If it's fine to ridicule Mormons without consequence then it is fine to ridicule Muslims. No religion should be off limits. I've never heard a decent rationale for why Allah shouldn't be portrayed on paper, I don't think hurt feelings and an implicit threat of violence count as a decent rationale.

Of course je suis Charlie how on earth could I be anything else?

Spot on

Context is everything
France is known to have a degree of Islamophobia in their culture
I’ve lived there , seen it , experienced it

I’m all for freedom of speech , but the situation in France is murky

So I’m not sure if Charlie is someone I’d like to be

I am curious whether you’re all familiar with the Dispatches documentaries Undercover Mosque & Undercover Mosque: The Return? Where you can see hate preaching and teaching Muslims to not be friends with non Muslims, teaching that Jews & Christians must all be killed before the Judgment Day... selling of books with hate speech at the Mosque... I’m curious, what does everyone think of these documentaries?

I understand that one of the cartoons satirised the fact that, according to Islamic scriptures, the prophet Mohammed married a six year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine.

Are we allowed to discuss this or because by modern Western standards it would mean criticising the prophet (which would cause great offence) is it best not to mention that and not have the conversation at all?

The answer is in theory yes but in practice no.

For the last couple of centuries, the Bible (both the OT and the NT) have been the subject of a huge amount of literary and archaeological analysis. Because of that, we know certain things, ie, the approximate date that its various books were written, how they were written, how they were edited and changed over time, in the case of some NT books, who wrote them. The academics who do this are Christians, not Christians or they're somewhere in-between, but there's consensus on all manner of issues.

There is nothing comparable with the Koran. Academic study of it is where academic study of the Bible was about two hundred years ago. There really aren't many academics who study it is as anything other than a religious text. The reason for this is clear enough: draw any innovative conclusions, and at best you're going to upset people, and at worst, you may be physically in danger.

@AutomaticMoon that sounds like the teachings of an extremist sect, which unfortunately exist in all religions. There are 1.8 billion Muslims on Earth and iirc around 30 million in Europe, do you believe the vast majority think non-Muslims should be killed? We don’t all walk around with and connect via murderous thoughts, in my experience we’re generally a happy bunch muddling through like everyone else

@WoolieLiberal Aisha was around 20 years old. Some sects believe that she was nine years old, I am a Muslim and personally don’t know anyone who believes that though.

“There is consensus that Hazrat Aisha was 10 years younger than her elder sister Asma, whose age at the time of the hijrah, or migration to Madina, was about 28. It can be concluded that Hazrat Aisha was about 18 years old at migration. On her moving to the Prophet’s house, she was a young woman at 21. Hisham is the single narrator of the hadith whose authenticity is challenged, for it does not correlate with the many historical facts of the time.”

www.dawn.com/news/696084/ofaishas-age-at-marriage

Wow since I posted
One post accusing him of marrying a child
One post about dodgy mosques

Je ne suis PAS Charlie

The trouble with parts of Islam is if you critique it you get either labeled as racist or fear for your safety. They have a very radical and committed religion (which one can certainly admire) and it seems you need more commitment to be a Muslim with the fasting and prayer 5 times a day and for women the control over what you wear than you do to be a Christian or any other mainstream religion. And therefore perhaps it is unsurprising that the defence of their religion is more robust. For example in extreme cases suicide bombers (the ultimate act of action for ones cause) have in the news been overwhelmingly Muslim. And considering Islam makes up only 4% of the UK population it is still the focus of a worrying number of terrorist attacks Christian attacks (at least on the mainland UK) are much thinner on the ground.

So until Islam and Christianity can react in an equally proportional way to criticism and mocking and showing cartoons of Jesus has the same outcome as Muhammad then I think it is fair to criticize how Islam fits into secular Britain.

100% agree OP.

Hophopandaway absolutely

There is a difference between critiquing and mocking religion

The problem with many critiquing is that often someone will pull a line from the Koran and use that as an argument rather then looking at the context or acknowledging that the Koran came about when life was very different. As with all beliefs Islam is adapted around how people live

I'm not Charlie,I'm not Muslim,I'm not a ranting person outside a school.

The middle ground us alive and well and thriving.People live amicably together but if course that doesn't sell.

There is a difference between critiquing and mocking religion

Neither mocking or debating religion is illegal. Not that I can see anyone mocking here. A teacher having to go into hiding in the UK due to the very real risk of harm is hardly a mocking matter, it's highlighting the serious problem of religious extremism that has no place here in the UK.

I don’t think anyone on here and very very few in the real world would support a teacher having to go into hiding

Extremism in all forms is never acceptable but it’s always lurking in society even in the UK be it religious led or intolerance to other cultures

Charlie Hebdo did some very near to the knuckle stuff mocking Jesus too. I think they poked fun at all religion. Not nice but free speech is the freedom to offend others without risking death or cancellation.

I’m not and I don’t think others are implying that freedom of speech (that we don’t truly have thankfully their are laws around hate speech) needs to be curtailed

It’s about what is appropriate to teach in class given that a section of our society are so often marginalised

Freedom of Speech does not necessarily mean the discussion should lead to the CH mocking of religion there are many other examples to use

Just because I and some others on here feel that this particular subject does not need to be continuously used doesn’t mean we do not support freedom of speech of feel in anyway the teacher should be under any sort of threat (to themselves or their jobs)

Unfortunately freedom of speech is being bandied around far too much and it’s become a simplistic argument when someone objects to another persons opinion

But the thing is, freedom of speech has been curtailed, even if this spineless government don't step up and do anything about it, as teachers will self censor themselves. Because the alternative is for mobs of angry men gathering around the school gates with a very clear message / threat sent out to all that there is likely to be consequences. And we know what those consequences are.

So this is the way now, someone says something that a large group of people don't like, send the mob in, job done, the person will never speak of it again as the risks are clear.

This is the whole bloody point. Not about respect for religion (and I have very little respect for a religion that leads to this) but the fact that people are threatened into silence by the risk of violence / death.

I'm not sure why people are so sidetracked by a bloody cartoon image when it's so much bigger than this.

@Hophopandaway Very well said!
@ipseity They might be an extremist sect but they are teaching in the regular Mosques that everyone attends. You should probably watch the documentaries before you justify or defend them