Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest

[MattofManchester]

Is ‘Quran is shit’ really Islamophobic? Saying a book is shit is an opinion one can have and express isn’t it?

Although why would you find the need to say that to or where a Muslim person may see that? Surely you can keep that to yourself, by why would you express that opinion publicly, knowing that it is going to offend someone? Why is this so hard?
This applies to many things.

I don't see why there's a majority wants to have the right to offend people who don't have the same beliefs as you. Be respectful and move on.
This applies to Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Catholicism, African ancestral beliefs and so on.
Why do you find a need to say something like that?

 

[Roane]

I kind of already covered this in a lenghy discussion in the "Religion what's the point?" thread. If i'm going to have to go through it again it will just derail the thread.

Fair enough. I too wouldn't like to drail this thread.

I'd like to have the discussion with you though.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

The Quran doesn't say it's ok to kill you

Opinions differ on that (non-believers are certainly being killed with the Quran in hand) but apart from the killing it’s full of hideous stuff to other people. It’s not Islamophobic to think that’s wrong and to say the book is shit in my opinion. As I said before I would never say it that way but how on earth it’s Islamophobic to review a book.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

Although why would you find the need to say that to or where a Muslim person may see that? Surely you can keep that to yourself, by why would you express that opinion publicly, knowing that it is going to offend someone? Why is this so hard?
This applies to many things.

I don't see why there's a majority wants to have the right to offend people who don't have the same beliefs as you. Be respectful and move on.
This applies to Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Catholicism, African ancestral beliefs and so on.
Why do you find a need to say something like that?

Because power needs to be questioned. Should you stop criticizing Trump because Trumpists deem that offensive? Should you stay away from negative reviews of books in papers because the writer might find it offensive? Of course fecking not.

I’m glad great philosophers questioned Christianity as otherwise we would still be stuck in the dark ages.

 

[DoomSlayer]

Because power needs to be questioned. Should you stop criticizing Trump because Trumpists deem that offensive? Should you refrain from negative reviews of books in papers because the writer might find it offensive? Of course fecking not.

And because people are allowed to voice their opinion, unless they live in a totalitarian country.

 

[Gehrman]

Although why would you find the need to say that to or where a Muslim person may see that? Surely you can keep that to yourself, by why would you express that opinion publicly, knowing that it is going to offend someone? Why is this so hard?
This applies to many things.

I don't see why there's a majority wants to have the right to offend people who don't have the same beliefs as you. Be respectful and move on.
This applies to Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Catholicism, African ancestral beliefs and so on.
Why do you find a need to say something like that?

Depends on the context doesn't it? Here we were referring to a cover of Charlie Hebdo where a jewish man in gunned down with a Quran in his hand. I personally wouldn't want to go into a Mosque and say the Quran is shit just because I could or just say it to a muslim because I could. But if I were discuss my opinon with a Muslim, I would do it in a honest, frank and nuanced way.

 

[JPRouve]

What if I have read the Quran, the life of Muhammed, Islamic history and I really don't like it or Sharia? There is something weird if people believe that a religion by default is good and people who don't like it are just some kind of phobes.

That would be weird indeed but I didn't make that suggestion and I don't know if anyone made it in this thread.

 

[Roane]

Opinions differ on that (non-believers are certainly being killed with the Quran in hand) but apart from the killing it’s full of hideous stuff to other people. It’s not Islamophobic to think that’s wrong and to say the book is shit in my opinion. As I said before I would never say it that way but how on earth it’s Islamophobic to review a book.

More believers, in recent time have been killed than non believers. Doesn't make it correct or doesnt make it islamic. Right wing nut jobs in the USA have a cross and a swastika tattooed on their person but I wouldn't take them to be representative of Christianity.

The argument presented by you and shamana about Quran verses is something that I have seen a lot, usually from certain channels who misinterpret or misinform.

As I said to shamana I would like to discuss certain things with him, not here so not to derail the thread. I offer you the same

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

And because people are allowed to voice their opinion, unless they live in a totalitarian country.

Yes I’m discussing this for so long now that you forget the obvious.

 

[Gehrman]

That would be weird indeed but I didn't make that suggestion and I don't know if anyone made it in this thread.

Well any non-muslim who has read the Quran might think it is shit and might express that in a rather crude way.

 

[JPRouve]

Well any non-muslim who has read the Quran might think it is shit and might express that in a rather crude way.

I'm a non-muslim, I read the Quran, I don't believe in any religious book and I don't feel the need to insult anyone on that topic. But you do you.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

I'm a non-muslim, I read the Quran, I don't believe in any religious book and I don't feel the need to insult anyone on that topic. But you do you.

Would you call someone who finds the books of Hubbard shit and expresses that an Scientologyphobe?

 

[JPRouve]

Depends on the context doesn't it? Here we were referring to a cover of Charlie Hebdo where a jewish man in gunned down with a Quran in his hand. I personally wouldn't want to go into a Mosque and say the Quran is shit just because I could or just say it to a muslim because I could. But if I were discuss my opinon with a Muslim, I would do it in a honest, frank and nuanced way.

By the way, it's not a jewish man but supposed to represent an egyptian muslim.

 

[JPRouve]

Would you call someone who finds the books of Hubbard shit and expresses that an Scientologyphobe?

It depends on what they say and why.

 

[Gehrman]

I'm a non-muslim, I read the Quran, I don't believe in any religious book and I don't feel the need to insult anyone on that topic. But you do you.

My own opinon wouldn't be to say it's shit. I just didn't find any of it very beautiful or insightfull. I was really mostly surprised about how obsessed it is with Hell, dis/unbelievers and the Day of Judgement. I was surprised about how it just went on and on about this. I don't think it can come across as beautifull in it's totality unless you really believe in All-mighty Allah.

 

[Gehrman]

By the way, it's not a jewish man but supposed to represent an egyptian muslim.

Okay, thanks for the correction. I don't know if they are referencing any particular event in this cartoon.

 

[JPRouve]

Okay, thanks for the correction. I don't know if they are referencing any particular event in this cartoon.

It's about the Morsi vs Army conflict in 2012.

 

[Roane]

My own opinon wouldn't be to say it's shit. I just didn't find any of it very beautiful or insightfull. I was really mostly surprised about how obsessed it is with Hell, dis/unbelievers and the Day of Judgement. I was surprised about how it just went on and on about this. I don't think it can come across as beautifull in it's totality unless you really believe in All-mighty Allah.

Obsessed with hell? What translation did you read.

Iirc all words associated with hell, so fire etc constitute 0.65% of the Quran. That's a rough estimation using the highest supposed links to hell (so about 500). The actual usage of the word hell (depending on translation) can be 80 to 150.

That's im about 77.5k words in total

 

[MattofManchester]

Because power needs to be questioned. Should you stop criticizing Trump because Trumpists deem that offensive? Should you stay away from negative reviews of books in papers because the writer might find it offensive? Of course fecking not.

I’m glad great philosophers questioned Christianity as otherwise we would still be stuck in the dark ages.

But the statement is specifically made to offend and insult, not question. There's a massive difference between making the statement "Islam is shit" and questioning it.
Even if you change the wording "Islam is fake", or "Islam is a nonsensical religion", you are very aware of the effect your words have, so if those are the words you use, then you are intending to purposefully cause an outrage, not question something.
Let's not pretend we're all oblivious to how our words can be construed here.

If you wanted to question something, you know very well that it can be done in a respectful manner.

There's some hypocrisy here. Let's dial down the concept to something incredibly menial as football.
Within this forum.
How many posters call football players "fecking shit" or garbage footballers? Maybe I've not been immune to this either, but I'm aware the behaviour is wrong.
Isn't there a precedent here that you can express or respectfully question a footballer's ability without outright insults? It's uncouth and disgusting, is it not? Its not a bannable offence, but it's not appropriate, is it?
And yet it's a private forum that those people individuals will never see.

So why would you find a need to go up to a Muslim and tell them their faith is "shit" in any form of wording, when you know that they would not appreciate that?

It really just seems like then you're just looking for a reason to be a prick, but under the guise of "questioning" it.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

But the statement is specifically made to offend and insult, not question. There's a massive difference between making the statement "Islam is shit" and questioning it.
Even if you change the wording "Islam is fake", or "Islam is a nonsensical religion", you are very aware of the effect your words have, so if those are the words you use, then you are intending to purposefully cause an outrage, not question something.
Let's not pretend we're all oblivious to how our words can be construed here.

If you wanted to question something, you know very well that it can be done in a respectful manner.

There's some hypocrisy here. Let's dial down the concept to something incredibly menial as football.
Within this forum.
How many posters call football players "fecking shit" or garbage footballers? Maybe I've not been immune to this either, but I'm aware the behaviour is wrong.
Isn't there a precedent here that you can express or respectfully question a footballer's ability without outright insults? It's uncouth and disgusting, is it not? Its not a bannable offence, but it's not appropriate, is it?
And yet it's a private forum that those people individuals will never see.

So why would you find a need to go up to a Muslim and tell them their faith is "shit" in any form of wording, when you know that they would not appreciate that?

It really just seems like then you're just looking for a reason to be a prick, but under the guise of "questioning" it.

In this case it’s clearly the base of a satirical cartoon so there is a purpose.

 

[Carolina Red]

That's not what I said, I suggested that whether a cartoon is hate speech depends on the cartoon. I ddidn't mention religions, the ability of mocking them or blasphemy.

Well then this is the response to Shamana causing my confusion...

Do you also feel that the ones where they mock the church, christians, jesus and god has no place in our society...?

Yes I do...

 

[Gehrman]

Obsessed with hell? What translation did you read.

Iirc all words associated with hell, so fire etc constitute 0.65% of the Quran. That's a rough estimation using the highest supposed links to hell (so about 500). The actual usage of the word hell (depending on translation) can be 80 to 150.

That's im about 77.5k words in total

https://quran.com/

I guess hell is also subbed with The Fire quite a lot. For instance

" But those who disbelieve and deny Our signs will be the residents of the Fire. They will be there forever.”

I assume residents of the Fire means hell.

I don't mean that hell is intermingled in every sentence. Just that hell/the fire or punishment for the disbelievers features in quite a lot of the verses. I'm not saying it's any worse than The Old Testament in that respect.

 

[Roane]

https://quran.com/

I guess hell is also subbed with The Fire quite a lot. For instance

" But those who disbelieve and deny Our signs will be the residents of the Fire. They will be there forever.”

I assume residents of the Fire means hell.

I don't mean that hell is intermingled in every sentence. Just that hell/the fire or punishment for the disbelievers features in quite a lot of the verses. I'm not saying it's any worse than The Old Testament in that respect.

Is that the version you've read?

Yeah the percentage I have you is of any links to hell (so words like fire etc). The word itself is mentioned a lot less (as I said between 80-150)

 

[Raven]

I think all religion is made up nonsense, have done since day one. I thoroughly hope that in a couple of generations time that if there are still people around that they'll be able to look back and laugh at the whole concept.

Having said that, I think things like this are just obnoxious, purposely produced and shared by those looking to stoke hate. It's one thing criticising religion and their practices but to just outright go and print their version of the N word is just so obviously trying to wind people up. This teacher is an outright prick for sharing that with bunch of kids. Shit like this isn't helpful, we should be accepting of people and their beliefs (as long as it's not harming anyone), it helps people feel part of society.

 

[JPRouve]

Well then this is the response to Shamana causing my confusion...

I thought that we were using the one I was against as a reference because my initial post has two cartoons, both mocks muslims but one is in my opinion inappropriate. For some reason people ignored my comment on the second one.

 

[JPRouve]

I think all religion is made up nonsense, have done since day one. I thoroughly hope that in a couple of generations time and that if there are still people around that they'll be able to look back and laugh at the whole concept.

Having said that, I think things like this are just obnoxious, purposely produced and shared by those looking to stoke hate. It's one thing criticising religion and their practices but to just outright go and print their version of the N word is just so obviously trying to wind people up. This teacher is an outright prick for sharing that with bunch of kids. Shit like this isn't helpful, we should be accepting of people and their beliefs (as long as it's not harming anyone), it helps people feel part of society.

What makes him an outright prick? That statement depends on what he said and actually did, doesn't it?

 

[Gehrman]

Is that the version you've read?

Yeah the percentage I have you is of any links to hell (so words like fire etc). The word itself is mentioned a lot less (as I said between 80-150)

Yeah i've read this one, i guess I could buy one in print, but I feel I'm fairly saturated at this point.

 

[Carolina Red]

I thought that we were using the one I was against as a reference because my initial post has two cartoons, both mocks muslims but one is in my opinion inappropriate. For some reason people ignored my comment on the second one.

I wasn’t ignoring your comment... it’s just that Voltaire famously did exactly what you’re saying shouldn’t be appropriate for society and today is hailed for it as a champion of individual liberty.

 

[Carolina Red]

This teacher is an outright prick for sharing that with bunch of kids. Shit like this isn't helpful

So what shouldn’t social studies teachers show examples of?

Denigrating Holocaust cartoons? Denigrating Jim Crow cartoons? I mean... examples of propaganda, and that’s what those satirical cartoons are, are shown to students all the time.

 

[VorZakone]

I wasn’t ignoring your comment... it’s just that Voltaire famously did exactly what you’re saying shouldn’t be appropriate for society and today is hailed for it as a champion of individual liberty.

Maybe he doesn't like Voltaire too.

 

[Roane]

So what shouldn’t social studies teachers show examples of?

Denigrating Holocaust cartoons? Denigrating Jim Crow cartoons? I mean... examples of propaganda, and that’s what those satirical cartoons are, are shown to students all the time.

Do you think the source matters?

If the pic was the bomb turban one taken from jyllandsposten, do you think he should have maybe wikkid or googled the source and acted appropriately?

I didn't know a anything about them myself but a quick Google and wikki and I'd say they were not a good source.

 

[JPRouve]

I wasn’t ignoring your comment... it’s just that Voltaire famously did exactly what you’re saying shouldn’t be appropriate for society and today is hailed for it as a champion of individual liberty.

That's a false equivalence because the medium is different and Voltaire methods are different and infinitely more intelligent and engaging. Which is why I said earlier in this thread that cartoons aren't necessarily the ideal medium, at least it depends on the audience, particularly when we are talking about singular images. And since you seemingly misunderstood my position, I'm not against mocking or criticizing religions, I'm against doing it in a way that is only based on emotions which is a big difference between Charlie Hebdo and Voltaire, Voltaire makes an elaborated point over 200 pages. I don't consider that two cartoons are equal even when they target the same topic and I don't consider that two provocations are equal either because the way you vehicule your message is as important as the message itself.

 

[Carolina Red]

Maybe he doesn't like Voltaire too.

Hence me asking him if he thought Candide shouldn’t have been published on the previous page of the thread

 

[Carolina Red]

Do you think the source matters?

If the pic was the bomb turban one taken from jyllandsposten, do you think he should have maybe wikkid or googled the source and acted appropriately?

I didn't know a anything about them myself but a quick Google and wikki and I'd say they were not a good source.

Yes, sourcing matters. When I show controversial cartoons, I always show where they came from. The controversial cartoon coming from a controversial source is pretty standard.

 

[Grinner]

That's a false equivalence because the medium is different and Voltaire methods are different and infinitely more intelligent and engaging. Which is why I said earlier in this thread that cartoons aren't necessarily the ideal medium, at least it depends on the audience, particularly when we are talking about singular images. And since you seemingly misunderstood my position, I'm not against mocking or criticizing religions, I'm against doing it in a way that is only based on emotions which is a big difference between Charlie Hebdo and Voltaire, Voltaire makes an elaborated point over 200 pages. I don't consider that two cartoons are equal even when they target the same topic and I don't consider that two provocations are equal either because the way you vehicule your message is as important as the message itself.

Political cartoons have historically been a very popular medium for making scathing attacks on public figures, policy, religion etc.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

But the statement is specifically made to offend and insult, not question. There's a massive difference between making the statement "Islam is shit" and questioning it.
Even if you change the wording "Islam is fake", or "Islam is a nonsensical religion", you are very aware of the effect your words have, so if those are the words you use, then you are intending to purposefully cause an outrage, not question something.
Let's not pretend we're all oblivious to how our words can be construed here.

If you wanted to question something, you know very well that it can be done in a respectful manner.

There's some hypocrisy here. Let's dial down the concept to something incredibly menial as football.
Within this forum.
How many posters call football players "fecking shit" or garbage footballers? Maybe I've not been immune to this either, but I'm aware the behaviour is wrong.
Isn't there a precedent here that you can express or respectfully question a footballer's ability without outright insults? It's uncouth and disgusting, is it not? Its not a bannable offence, but it's not appropriate, is it?
And yet it's a private forum that those people individuals will never see.

So why would you find a need to go up to a Muslim and tell them their faith is "shit" in any form of wording, when you know that they would not appreciate that?

It really just seems like then you're just looking for a reason to be a prick, but under the guise of "questioning" it.

Great post.

 

[Carolina Red]

That's a false equivalence because the medium is different and Voltaire methods are different and infinitely more intelligent and engaging. Which is why I said earlier in this thread that cartoons aren't necessarily the ideal medium, at least it depends on the audience, particularly when we are talking about singular images. And since you seemingly misunderstood my position, I'm not against mocking or criticizing religions, I'm against doing it in a way that is only based on emotions which is a big difference between Charlie Hebdo and Voltaire, Voltaire makes an elaborated point over 200 pages. I don't consider that two cartoons are equal even when they target the same topic and I don't consider that two provocations are equal either because the way you vehicule your message is as important as the message itself.

That’s fair I guess if you want to distinguish between written word satirical blasphemy and cartoon satirical blasphemy, but I see the two as equals. They’re both artistic mediums working towards the same purpose.

 

[JPRouve]

Political cartoons have historically been a very popular medium for making scathing attacks on public figures, policy, religion etc.

I'm getting confused here. I didn't suggest that cartoons should be banned, I didn't criticize cartoons as a whole, I criticized the message of particular cartoon and said that it has no place in our society. Is that inappropriate to criticize a cartoon and its message?
I shared two cartoons I believed that one was a well made criticism and that the other wasn't.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

The Quran doesn't say it's ok to kill you

You'll find stuff like that regularly posted, based on nothing of substance. Don't waste your time on these types, they're gonna continue to post year after year the same shite. It's "discussion". We are "debating".

 

[NotThatSoph]

Well I disagree. I'm fine with a secular left wing satirical magazine punching at religion in their own offensive style in a country with freedom of religion and freedom from religion. It's still just cartoons and no one is forced to buy their magazines or support them.

As is this. It's also nazi propaganda spreading the still popular antisemitic conspiracy theory about Jews running the world.

This constant reference to what medium it is (in general, not from you specifically) is weird.