Jan 07, 2015
The powerful must never be immune from mockery. If there is one thing which the past several hundred years have taught us, this is it: power which is not subject to examination, to criticism, to the salutary effects of lèse-majesté, is the greatest factory of tyranny that the world has ever known.
It is particularly ironic that the men who perpetrated today's massacre in Paris were angry over satirical depictions of Muhammad, because in doing so they have forgotten the exact reason why his depiction was forbidden: because the depiction of animals or of people encourages idolatry. [1] Islam has always been profoundly careful to avoid even the slightest suggestion of veneration of anything other than God: even the time for the mid-day prayer begins just after the Sun has passed its zenith, to avoid the appearance of Sun worship. The purpose of the hadith is to prevent people from worshipping the Prophet, not to put the Prophet on a par with God.
No, the reason for this had nothing to do with holy writ, and everything to do with people who want the right to declare that they may not be insulted, that their pride has more value than human life. And any claim which can be enforced with bloodshed is a claim which comes from power -- and thus a claim which itself has no claim on immunity from mockery. Because they demand it must not be spoken, and because they wish to prevent it from being spoken by creating a fear of murder among anyone who speaks out, it must therefore be spoken.
In the spirit of this, here are several of the cartoons which Charlie Hebdo published which brought down this rage. As its cover I present the best possible summary of all: a picture of Muhammad, saying "It's hard to be loved by assholes."
#JeSuisCharlie
[1] See e.g. Sahih al-Bukhari 3:34:318, http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/034-sbt.php#003.034.318
It is particularly ironic that the men who perpetrated today's massacre in Paris were angry over satirical depictions of Muhammad, because in doing so they have forgotten the exact reason why his depiction was forbidden: because the depiction of animals or of people encourages idolatry. [1] Islam has always been profoundly careful to avoid even the slightest suggestion of veneration of anything other than God: even the time for the mid-day prayer begins just after the Sun has passed its zenith, to avoid the appearance of Sun worship. The purpose of the hadith is to prevent people from worshipping the Prophet, not to put the Prophet on a par with God.
No, the reason for this had nothing to do with holy writ, and everything to do with people who want the right to declare that they may not be insulted, that their pride has more value than human life. And any claim which can be enforced with bloodshed is a claim which comes from power -- and thus a claim which itself has no claim on immunity from mockery. Because they demand it must not be spoken, and because they wish to prevent it from being spoken by creating a fear of murder among anyone who speaks out, it must therefore be spoken.
In the spirit of this, here are several of the cartoons which Charlie Hebdo published which brought down this rage. As its cover I present the best possible summary of all: a picture of Muhammad, saying "It's hard to be loved by assholes."
#JeSuisCharlie
[1] See e.g. Sahih al-Bukhari 3:34:318, http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/034-sbt.php#003.034.318
View 165 previous comments
I moved the sidetracking conversation to a separate thread here:
https://plus.google.com/100276050920859547198/posts/Qp34cwfeM42Jan 10, 2015
+Matt Schofield > "moral outrage being expressed across the West at the treatment of these journalists for simply writing something offensive and threatening really is a bit hypocritical in the context of this US policy,.."
........ Matt, over generalizations. Many people "across the West" have expressed outrage in both cases. So they are certainly not hypocritical from this point of view. There many hypocrites of course, but generalizing like this actually helps them to blend in..
It is OK to condemn one outrage without having to list all other outrageous things in human history, each time. Life would be too short for this anyway :-(Jan 10, 2015
"Worth" is the wrong word: when human life is not valued from the outset, there is no "worth". These people are lower than whale shit on the bottom of the ocean.Jan 11, 2015
and what the fuck is "authentic Hadith"? It's all MADE UP by hunmans. Wake up.Jan 11, 2015
+Frank Tedesco It's hadith that was made through the legitimate processes for making hadith, as opposed to forged by someone else later.Jan 11, 2015
+Yonatan Zunger Could you elaborate on the procedural requirements and statutory/case law equivalent text defining them?Jan 20, 2015