Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
(having read the comic book over the weekend, and discussed it with friends) to provide a bit of a review and commentary on it.

But I doubt it would be of any interest. Everyone here already has their own opinion of it.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:04:21 AM EST
You have made your opinion known before you have read it, too. Has it changed?
by Katrin on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:22:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I learn things, I think about them, I listen to other people.

This site is a major part of this for me. But I've come to realise that I'm in a minority in that respect.

About the comic : Most of the contributors to this thread (none of whom have read it, as far as I know) seemed pretty sure that it will worsen things for Muslims in France. Many appear to think that it is a deliberate attempt to denigrate Muslims. At least one (not naming names) is quite convinced that the authors are racist.

I have expressed my opinion that the intentions of the authors are progressive, and that previous publications by that paper on the same theme have had an overall positive effect.

The only thing I expressed on the content of the book, which I wrote before I had got past the first few pages :

I have to say that Charb is being ironic when he claims that the intent is not to ridicule Mohammed.

I have in fact changed my mind on.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:53:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, from reading the diary and the first 200 comments I had no idea we were talking about the Charlie Hebdo comic book, until you mentioned it in the top-level comment.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:56:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, ormondotvos posted the diary in reaction to this news item in last Wednesday's Salon.  It was a quick and dirty diary, he should have provided more context. It's possible he's been misunderstood, but it's his own fault.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 11:07:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ormondotvos never makes more than quick and dirty contributions.

Do you seriously want to defend this one?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 11:31:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would have been interesting, in my view, to have a wide-ranging discussion on the ascendancy of political Islam. As I have already mentioned numerous times, I don't like the way he framed the debate, but there are interesting things to debate, and I would have been interested in his contribution. Oh well.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 11:46:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think he's interested in making a contribution in a positive sense.

One point is that it is quite untrue that there is or never has been discussion here of different aspects of political Islam, Islamism, etc., and the "West". Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, so-called "Muslim" rioting in France, the London Tube bombing, the Danish cartoons, the Toulouse shootings, are some topics that come to mind. I suppose an index of past debates (often copious) needs compiling, but I haven't got time right now.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 12:16:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
@afew, I resent your quick and dirty remark.

I was asking a question about feeble secularism.

I also resent your presumption of trolling.

You might want to think it over.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Jan 12th, 2013 at 11:06:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ormondotvos:
your quick and dirty remark

If anything was "quick and dirty", it was your diary. A few provocative lines on a highly-charged topic is not the kind of contribution that gives you the moral right to judge others' contributions.

ormondotvos:

I also resent your presumption of trolling.

The diary is not only pitifully lacking in development of your ideas, your past record on ET is one of leaving provocative one-line comments and not returning for any further discussion. In the case of this diary, you weren't here either for the discussion. Concluding that you were not interested in making a positive contribution seemed evident to a number of users, not just me.

The presumption of ormondotvos trolling is also shared among a number of users here, as has been the case, as you know, in other places on the internet. So resent away.

In fact, it takes chutzpah to set off a shitstorm on a forum, then come back later and whine.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jan 13th, 2013 at 04:22:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The presumption of ormondotvos trolling is also shared among a number of users here

An unkind judgment of our user base. An opinion formed on the basis of evidence is a conclusion, not a presumption.

/PN

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jan 13th, 2013 at 08:48:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Katrin:
You have made your opinion known before you have read it, too. Has it changed?
Huh?

eurogreen

I'll buy it and review it here.


I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 11:11:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, and now I am asking if he has changed his opinion by reading it, or if he is still of the opinion he had when he only expected what was in the book. I wasn't aware that my simple question could be misunderstood so easily.
by Katrin on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 11:33:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps a separate diary?
by IM on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:25:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
second that
by Katrin on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 11:30:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So Charlie Hedbo published a cartoon life of Mohammed. Well done!

Interestingly, the life of Mohammed has been filmed:

In accordance with Muslim beliefs regarding depictions of Muhammad, he was not depicted on-screen nor was his voice heard. At the beginning of the film, a statement is displayed, "The makers of this film honour the Islamic tradition which holds that the impersonation of the Prophet offends against the spirituality of his message. Therefore, the person of Mohammad will not be shown."
This rule extended to his wives, his daughters, his sons-in-law, and the first caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali). This left Muhammad's uncle Hamza (Anthony Quinn) and his adopted son Zayd (Damien Thomas) as the central characters. During the battles of Badr and Uhud depicted in the movie, Hamza was in nominal command, even though the actual fighting was led by Muhammad.
Whenever Muhammad was present or very close by, his presence was indicated by light organ music. His words, as he spoke them, were repeated by someone else such as Hamza, Zayd and Bilal. When a scene called for him to be present, the action was filmed from his point of view. Others in the scene nodded to the unheard dialogue.
The closest the film comes to a depiction of Muhammad or his immediate family are the view of Ali's famous two-pronged sword Zulfiqar during the battle scenes, a glimpse of a staff in the scenes at the Kaaba or in Medina, and Muhammad's camel, Qaswa.
However, that is not good enough for some
In 1977 a group of Islamic radicals took over a number of buildings in Washington, DC in protest against the film, demanding its destruction.
Question: does the CH life of Mohammed contain stuff like this?
And here is the image that will probably get the offices of Charlie Hebdo firebombed, a spoof of Mohammed as Brigitte Bardot with the caption "The film that embraces the Muslim world:"

("And my buttocks? Do you like my buttocks?")

Gotta love tasteful political humour...

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:32:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
tasteful political humour is not what CH is famous for.

(And it's not "The film that embraces the Muslim world:"
it's "The film that sets the Muslim world on fire")

The "fesses" line is of course a reference to Brigitte Bardot in J-L Godard's film Le Mépris

(about 3 minutes in, if you're impatient)

I find the reference funny on a couple of levels.

A number of CH articles on the theme of religion are available on line.


It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:51:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's also a fart joke: Mohammed, a star is born.

I seriously don't understand what purpose is advanced by rallying in defence of titty and ass and fart jokes about Mohamed (or anyone).

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 11:04:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
no, the comic book does not contain stuff like that. It's a straightforward illustrated biography. Once you get over Charb's rather ugly style (his characters all look much the same, except when he's drawing political figures who have to be recognizable), the usual comic-book mechanisms come into play, you like the hero, you learn about his life and formative influences, it's difficult to read through it and not come out with a positive opinion of Mohamed the man (it covers his early life, before he declared himself the Prophet).

The comic effects come mostly from the miraculous folklore which is recounted and illustrated (Mo's parents were perpetually bathed in a luminous glow; when Mo crossed the desert on his camel, he was always accompanied by a cloud which protected him from the sun; and so on). But in modern times, probably only the mentally-retarded actually literally believe that sort of stuff, so I see no harm, from a religious point of view, in making fun of it.

Whether the reader concludes that the comic is hostile towards Islam or towards Muslims is entirely subjective, of course (objectively, that would be hard to demonstrate, since it covers Mo's pre-Islamic period). I think not.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 11:23:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
especially knowing that the people who don't like that are a persecuted minority, yes.
If someone made those jokes about the shareholders of Northrop Grumman reacting to the news of children in Pakistan, I'd forget my humanitarian scruples for a moment. But bey, I guess targeting that lot isn't progressive enough.  
by Katrin on Mon Jan 7th, 2013 at 11:28:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You rally to the defense of free speech, not crudity. Polite speech, of course, needs no defense. It might be kinda subtle, this point.

See the ACLU.org page for arguments.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Jan 12th, 2013 at 11:09:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Polite speech, of course, needs no defense.

And in that you're wrong. Censorship censors ideas. If you express your ideas crudely you allow the censors the easy wae out of censoring you for obscenity or lack of decorum.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 13th, 2013 at 05:11:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series