If we can't insult Muhammad, should the Qur'an also be banned?

Now I don't think either should be the case, HOWEVER, I have seen numerous posts by users suggesting that people should not have the right to insult Muhammad, the publishers of Charlie Hebdo were stupid for proceeding to publish such images after receiving threats, that publishing images of Muhammad offends Muslims, etc.

The problem with his logic is that insult and offence are incredibly subjective and relative. One man's insult is another man's satire. One man's insult is another man's beliefs.

If we were to prohibit insulting Muhammad (by banning publication of images as an example) then, logically, we would also have to ban the publication of the Qur'an and other Islamic texts. The Qur'an contains numerous passages that are subjectively insulting to gay people, feminists, non-believers, etc.

This goes to show that people who stand firm that you should not have the right to insult or satirise Muhammad don't think, and don't appreciate that it would also lead to the Qur'an being banned. The freedom to disseminate things which are offensive to people works both ways.

Yet the root of their motive still lied in taking offence at the cartoons. It does not matter that from that root up until their actions they embellished such a motive with notions that it was a sacred duty, and so on. A gay mentally ill person may read an article calling gay people an abomination and proceed to kill the publishers. The root of his motive was taking offence at the article, it does not matter whether he also thought it was his duty as a member of a fabricated Gay Revolutionary Corps or whatever.

Anyway, my post primarily refers to the people who have been commenting on this atrocity who do not view it as their sacred duty to kill the publishers of blasphemous cartoons, but have specifically said that they are "offended" by them and that such a right to offend should not exist. My argument is that, by that logic, the Qur'an should also be banned.

That's your subjective, and rather irrelevant, opinion. I am sure many found their satirical tone humorous. And the cartoons probably would not have been published to such an extent but for the incredibly offensive, totally unnecessary, unhelpful, inflammatory and generally pretty disgusting response from fascists who despise freedom of expression.

The above paragraph does not make sense and you failed to explain how it is "absurd logic".



That's the point: offence is subjective and relative to the person. The Qur'an and other Islamic scripts contain many references to women, gay people and non-believers which many would find subjectively offensive. It wouldn't take much of a search to identify these texts.



This is completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread. I struggle to see what you are arguing against here that is in my OP?



More irrelevancy. As to your last sentence, that's the whole point of offence - you may think Islam is a gleaming beacon for female empowerment, but many others would find it grossly offensive. Just as you may find an image of Muhammad grossly offensive, others may find it amusing. That's why there shouldn't be a prohibition on the right to offend.



Again, you're going into your own speech here. How is this relevant to my OP?

Again, this is subjective conjecture. Many will have considered it humorous satire and a middle finger to fascists who wish to deny free expression.

Regardless, most people have the capacity to switch off an offensive television show or discard an offensive leaflet. As Charlie Hebdo is quite an insignificant publication, you would pretty much have to search for it in order to experience the subjective feelings you list above.

You're going the wrong way.

You're saying that currently it is: Insulting Mo is prohibited but offensive Qu'ran is allowed

You want to go to: Insulting Mo is prohibited and offensive Qu'ran is prohibited

We should instead have: Insulting Mo is allowed and offensive Qu'ran is allowed

How would you feel about a caricature of Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I or even Jesus which depicted them in a ridiculing fashion? What if people found those grossly offensive, and all of the adjectives you have used so passionately? Would you offer the same condemnation as you have in respect of caricatures of Muhammad? Or are caricatures of Muhammad the only type of "offensive" cartoons which you would condemn so passionately?

More irrelevancy. As to your last sentence, that's the whole point of offence - you may think Islam is a gleaming beacon for female empowerment, but many others would find it grossly offensive. Just as you may find an image of Muhammad grossly offensive, others may find it amusing. That's why there shouldn't be a prohibition on the right to offend.

Wide publication isn't inherently wrong in itself. It just means that, objectively, more copies have been disseminated.

In respect of reaction, you are walking on ice-thin logical ground if you measure offence, and the condemnation you ascribe to such offence, by the level of reaction. David Starkey may have a fit of upset and rage if you caricatured Elizabeth I; whereas, one particular Westernised Muslim may have merely a minor annoyance at a caricature of Muhammad. It's logically unsound to rely on the level of emotion and anger, as it is entirely relative to the particular individual.

Satire isn't supposed to be pleasant.

My view is that such a belief is not mistaken in the slightest. Continuing to print the cartoon, in an effort to stand up for freedom of expression, even in the face of threats from extremists, is noble. It's not too dissimilar to people who printed caricatures of absolute monarchs and kept printing them even though they faced arrest and execution.

But why should you sacrifice your freedoms in order to placate extremists?

Say the far-right grew extremely militant in Europe. Should Muslims close down their mosques and stop publishing the Qur'an in order to avoid "problems" and reprisals? The answer to that is no. They should not have to sacrifice their freedom to worship and their beliefs in order to satisfy the whims of extremists, even if those extremists' actions cause difficulties.

You're acting as if the images are being posted through the doors of Muslim households. You have to go out of your way to find them, and then look at them without pressing the red "x" button, or throwing away a hard copy.

I am sure many view these images as "profane" as satirical images of politicians and other historical figures. I do not believe they are published purely to be vicious to ordinary Muslims, but to show that Muhammad was not perfect and should be subject to ridicule like any historical figure, and as a protest against those who believe such cartoons should be banned. If people are subjectively "hurt' because they go out of their way to find these images then it's frankly tough luck. It's as tough luck as those who kicked up a fuss when satirical images of Margaret Thatcher were published. People may have found them "profane" and disrespectful, but they were published to show that she was not flawless and to highlight the gross sycophancy at the time.

How is the analogy absurd? Your argument is that some Muslims are offended by Muhammad images, and therefore human decency should be shown by refraining from publishing them. The far-right's argument is that they are offended by the Qur'an and proliferation of mosques, and therefore human decency should be shown by refraining from publishing and building them. Both are entirely subjective, with neither view being objectively higher than the other. That is the nature of offence.