Videogame that contains verses from the Koran postponed

[Undesired Walrus]

Sony has postponed the global release of a much-anticipated video game due to concerns that it may offend Muslims.

Copies of LittleBigPlanet are being recalled from shops worldwide after it emerged that a background music track contained two phrases from the Koran.

Sony issued an apology for any offence that its use of the backing track might have caused...

Manzoor Moghal, of the Muslim Forum think-tank, explained that words from the Koran should not be set to music because the words are seen to have come directly from God.

He added: "We must compliment Sony for taking decisive action by withdrawing these games immediately, and releasing a version that is not offensive to Muslims."


There is something remarkably insufferable about the comments of Manzoor Moghal, in that he appears to believe that the universe owes his religion a living.

Dr Adequate raised an issue in another thread I think is relevant here.

In the USSR people used to name their kids Melsor.

Marx Engels Lenin Stalin Otober Revolution.

Certain political philosophies have shown themselves (as above) to be no less ingrained in the emotions of its followers than religion.

Marxism and Stanlinism are -since the fall of the Berlin wall- frequently ridiculed. No Marxist today who campaigns for books, videogames or music to be banned -because of their focus on Stalin or Marx- would be listened to, and that (not obeying their commands) would be deemed as acceptable.

More to the point, if an extremely small religous group -a group who worshiped Thor- had their God in a computer game, should they be respected and his image removed? They almost certainly would not, because they would be undoubtably small in numbers. Would Mr Moghal argue for the episode of South Park -in which Scientology was called a 'great-global-con'- to be banned? That those who are big in number are obeyed, is a demonstration that this has nothing to do with reverence or respect.

There is a tendancy to allow the amount of arrogance on display by Mr Moghal (That his personal belief should take precedence over any other belief system) play so strongly with our emotions that we can never arrive at a descriptive, rational argument as to why these demands are so utterly unjust.

I'd like to explore those arguments here, with some help from other rationalists. Why are the requests of Mr Moghal so utterly unjust? What can society not do if it has to keep on censoring itself?

[Darth Rotor]

There is something remarkably insufferable about the comments of Manzoor Moghal, in that he appears to believe that the universe owes his religion a living.
Entitlement: a standard Semitic meme? :confused: Or, maybe, that should be phrased "Standard Abrahamic meme" or even more pointedly, the "standard Ishmaelic meme" or some such.
More to the point, if an extremely small religous group -a group who worshiped Thor- had their God in a computer game, should they be respected and his image removed?
No. If the gameplay is good, it needs to be available a Electronic Boutique.

They almost certainly would not, because they would be undoubtably small in numbers. Would Mr Moghal argue for the episode of South Park -in which Scientology was called a 'great-global-con'- to be banned?
From his angle, Scientologists are heretics, so who gives a good damn?
That those who are big in number are obeyed, is a demonstration that this has nothing to do with reverence or respect.
The concept of God being on the side of the big battalions begins to make a different sort of sense here. ;)
There is a tendancy to allow the amount of arrogance on display by Mr Moghal (That his personal belief should take precedence over any other belief system) play so strongly with our emotions that we can never arrive at a descriptive, rational argument as to why these demands are so utterly unjust.
Maybe he's just a dickhead, and we leave it at that. He can join Jerry Fallwell in that pantheon.
I'd like to explore those arguments here, with some help from other rationalists. Why are the requests of Mr Moghal so utterly unjust? What can society not do if it has to keep on censoring itself?
Uh, wait a sec, my dear Walrus. Why must it censor itself? At whose demand, and with whose compliance, does this state of play arrive?
But I gnash my teeth in sheer frustration, nonetheless:
Videogame that contains verses from the Koran postponed
Damnit, that was going to be my standard Christmas gift this year. :mad:

[Alareth]

Religion ruins everything ...

KingMerv00 must be devastated by the delay.

[tyr_13]

Why would they be offended by their own words?

[Cavemonster]

Why would they be offended by their own words?

Because their religion states that those words need to be presented in certain ways only. Never to music.

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about members of any group asking that when their traditions are used they be respected.

Game companies (or any other company) has every right to ignore complaints or recognize them. In this case, since the offensive content was not integral to the game, it made sense for them to be respectful and make the change.

If the point of the game had been to make critical statements about Islam, then it would have made sense to deny any request.

No group has a RIGHT to have their symbols treated in any particular way, but it's a reasonable human action to try not to piss people off if you don't have a reason to. It's called not being a jerk.

[tomwaits]

Business is business.

[gtc]

This story provides background (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/17/inside-the-lbp-delay-a-grammy-award-winning-artists-2006-song/).

The song is actually written by a devout muslim.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I already posted a thread on this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126716). :p

[Undesired Walrus]

Because their religion states that those words need to be presented in certain ways only. Never to music.

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about members of any group asking that when their traditions are used they be respected.

Game companies (or any other company) has every right to ignore complaints or recognize them. In this case, since the offensive content was not integral to the game, it made sense for them to be respectful and make the change.

If the point of the game had been to make critical statements about Islam, then it would have made sense to deny any request.

No group has a RIGHT to have their symbols treated in any particular way, but it's a reasonable human action to try not to piss people off if you don't have a reason to. It's called not being a jerk.

If a movie has scenes which -if viewed- become unbearable for those who suffer from claustrophobia, should their emotions be respected and the mentioned scenes removed?

As mentioned in the OP, would you argue for the removal of the South Park episode in which scientology is called a great global con?

[Cavemonster]

If a movie has scenes which -if viewed- become unbearable for those who suffer from claustrophobia, should their emotions be respected and the mentioned scenes removed?

As mentioned in the OP, would you argue for the removal of the South Park episode in which scientology is called a great global con?

1) They are offended by the existence, not by the experience. "if viewed" doesn't apply here.

2) I think that people who believe that scientology is true (the nutters that they are) have every right to be offended and to voice their offense. It would be very strange if they didn't.

I do think that airing that episode was a slap in the face to scientologists. The difference is that they deserve the slap and that was the point of the episode. Why piss off a large group of people you have no beef with?

[Undesired Walrus]

1) They are offended by the existence, not by the experience. "if viewed" doesn't apply here.

Who's to say people cannot be offended by the existence of a film about the Normandy Landings, the Holocaust, or the Gulf War? Many people experienced severe trauma in these events, yet should these films be pulled if they asked for their removal? 'Apocalypse Now' was a film released only a few years after the Vietnam War ended, and began shooting while it was still waging.

2) I think that people who believe that scientology is true (the nutters that they are) have every right to be offended and to voice their offense. It would be very strange if they didn't.

I do think that airing that episode was a slap in the face to scientologists. The difference is that they deserve the slap and that was the point of the episode. Why piss off a large group of people you have no beef with?

Because it is the natural way in which art does business in the West. Francis Bacon -the renowned artist- is perhaps most famous for his brilliant paintings of Pope Innocent.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u131/dnepsys/posts/b_head-vi_.png

However, the painting can be -for such a respected figure by Catholics worldwide- deeply offensive. Should their offense stop this brilliant work of art being shown? Should his version of the stations of the cross -in which one image has a Nazi present- be banned? Should The Last Temptation of Christ be banned? Jerry Springer The Musical? Philip Pullman? A piece of gay literature?

[Cavemonster]

Are you actually reading the things I write?

When did I ever say that ANYTHING should be banned?

Here's the totality of my position.
1) There is nothing wrong with people getting offended and voicing their offense at what they perceive to be disrespect.

2) The producer of a piece of art can choose how they respond to that.

3) I personally think it's kind of jerky to ignore a large group of offended people when a simple change that doesn't effect the message of the piece can make everybody happy. As a business, it doesn't hurt to keep people happy, I'm sure their accountants ran the numbers.

That's it. I think most of the work of Bacon is a slap in the face to Catholic sentiments and Bacon and I would agree that catholic sentiments continue to need a slap in the face. It's up to the artist to decide whether the anger that a work arouses is-
a) Avoidable with reasonable changes
b) Unavoidable by the nature of the work
c) Avoidable but who cares?

Why are you talking about banning anything? Nobody else is.

[Dragoonster]

I do think that airing that episode was a slap in the face to scientologists. The difference is that they deserve the slap and that was the point of the episode. Why piss off a large group of people you have no beef with?

For one, artistic integrity and value. If the two verses improved the gaming experience even a little bit (for reasonable people), cutting them goes against that.

Business is business.

Pretty much. Plenty of videogames have had content cut so as to acheive a certain rating, or not alienate a certain target group for the game.

Recently Fallout 3 had a dispute with only Australia over its depictions of real-world drug use. I think instead of either getting a higher rating or unable to distibute it there the producers decided to slightly change the drug-taking animation, and to rename "heroin" to "med-X". This'll be applied to all copies worldwide.

Fallout 2 faced similar controversy over the ability to kill children. In order to keep ratings and distribution in Europe (who were the ones complaining), they made children in the game untargetable. You could still kill them by targeting behind them, but that's what the silly demand was.

I think the solution for targetable children in Fallout 1 (or maybe it was Baldur's Gate) was to apply a patch to the game, so they could distribute those copies for Europe.

And the GTA controversies are pretty well-known.

Islam certainly seems anal-retentive on these sorts of things, compared to (most) other religions. But they're certainly not alone among vocal weenie groups who spend too much time trying to affect other people's experiences.

[richardm]

1) There is nothing wrong with people getting offended and voicing their offense at what they perceive to be disrespect.

True.


2) The producer of a piece of art can choose how they respond to that.

Also true.


3) I personally think it's kind of jerky to ignore a large group of offended people when a simple change that doesn't effect the message of the piece can make everybody happy. As a business, it doesn't hurt to keep people happy, I'm sure their accountants ran the numbers.


And so is this, except that I would bet you that it has nothing to do with accountants. After all, the game set in Manchester Cathedral earlier this year garnered lots of protest but the game wasn't pulled.

My bet is that this game was pulled because people who publically offend Muslims appear at times to end up firebombed or stabbed, and this is why people get a bit cross about it: it seems that Muslims have bullied their way to a position where they can freeze any use of Islam that they don't personally agree with it (even if Islam as a whole doesn't take a position)

[Undesired Walrus]

3) I personally think it's kind of jerky to ignore a large group of offended people when a simple change that doesn't effect the message of the piece can make everybody happy.

And if a Christian or Muslim demands a copy of Philip Pullman's work to be removed from their local bookshop -because it offends them just by existing near them- should the owner remove it, just because he realises it doesn't effect the shop itself? If he doesn't, is that 'jerky'? Or is the jerk the person who demands something that they never have to look at again be removed?

[ImaginalDisc]

Because their religion states that those words need to be presented in certain ways only. Never to music.

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about members of any group asking that when their traditions are used they be respected.

Game companies (or any other company) has every right to ignore complaints or recognize them. In this case, since the offensive content was not integral to the game, it made sense for them to be respectful and make the change.

If the point of the game had been to make critical statements about Islam, then it would have made sense to deny any request.

No group has a RIGHT to have their symbols treated in any particular way, but it's a reasonable human action to try not to piss people off if you don't have a reason to. It's called not being a jerk.

Yes, it is unreasonable for a group to ask that when its traditions are used, that they be respected.

No one owns a religious idea (I'm looking at you, Scienologists) and they need to be open to parody and satire, and open as a source for creative and even theological orgininality. A Muslim has no more right to ask a video game be suspended because it fails to meet their hypocritical and narrow interpretation of the Koran than a Christian has to ask that Paradise Lost be banned from bookstores because it paints their God in a bad light.

Muslims do not own a copyright on the Koran. Its content can be used by anyone for any reason, as well it should be. When even non-Muslims treat that savage, rambling tripe as untouchable it's the camel's nose to a world of problems.

[tomwaits]

Yes, it is unreasonable for a group to ask that when its traditions are used, that they be respected.

No one owns a religious idea (I'm looking at you, Scienologists) and they need to be open to parody and satire, and open as a source for creative and even theological orgininality. A Muslim has no more right to ask a video game be suspended because it fails to meet their hypocritical and narrow interpretation of the Koran than a Christian has to ask that Paradise Lost be banned from bookstores because it paints their God in a bad light.

A muslim most certainly has a right to voice a complaint, as does a Christian or anyone else. And the business has every right to either comply or refuse the request. In this case, Sony felt it was in their best interest to remove the song. Simple as that.

[ImaginalDisc]

A muslim most certainly has a right to voice a complaint, as does a Christian or anyone else. And the business has every right to either comply or refuse the request. In this case, Sony felt it was in their best interest to remove the song. Simple as that.

Yes, they do have, and should have, the right to complain. However, I maintain that complaining about it is unreasonable. There's a difference between what should be legal and what we should listen to.

I was specifically addressing this sentence, "I don't think there's anything unreasonable about members of any group asking that when their traditions are used they be respected," which I believe is unreasonable. No one owns a tradition, much less a religious tradition.

[tomwaits]

Yes, they do have, and should have, the right to complain. However, I maintain that complaining about it is unreasonable. There's a difference between what should be legal and what we should listen to.

I was specifically addressing this sentence, "I don't think there's anything unreasonable about members of any group asking that when their traditions are used they be respected," which I believe is unreasonable. No one owns a tradition, much less a religious tradition.

Fair enough.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Here's an interesting turn of events.

Muslims cannot benefit from freedom of expression and religion and then turn around and ask that anytime their sensibilities are offended that the freedom of others be restricted," M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., told Edge yesterday. "The free market allows for expression of disfavor by simply not purchasing a game that may be offensive."

Jasser added that contrary to the beliefs of many people, including some Muslims, Mohammed "defended the rights of his enemies to critique him in any way even if it was offensive to his own Islamic sensibilities or respect for Koranic scripture."

Sony ordered the recall following a forum post from a "devout Muslim" who claimed the presence of the song Tapha Niang, which had been properly licensed for use, was "deeply offensive" because it contained two lines taken from the Quran. A release day patch to remove the music was quickly devised by developer Media Molecule, but Sony elected to go one step further and recall the game world-wide to ensure nobody's feelings were hurt. But Jasser pointed out that the creator of the music, Toumani Diabate of Mali, was himself a "devout Muslim," which demonstrated that the issue is not about offending Muslims at all but instead about a desire to control speech and expression.

"To demand that [the game] be withdrawn is predicated on a society which gives theocrats who wish to control speech far more value than the central principle of freedom of expression upon which the very practice and freedom of religion is based," he said. "The fact that the music writer is a devout Muslim should highlight that at the core of this issue is not about offending 'all Muslims,' but only about freedom of expression and the free market."

Read Me (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/86936-Muslim-Group-Criticizes-LittleBigPlanet-Recall)

[Polaris]

Damn, and I was kinda looking forward to playing it.

Just for that, I'm going to throw a copy of the Koran through a wood chipper. When Islam's slapped, frankly, it should take it and like it, and not a single soul should concede an inch to it.

[Psi Baba]

What Manzoor Moghal conveniently ignores, and what others tend to forget, is that these limitations apply only to Muslims, not to everyone else. If the videogame was being made and sold by Muslims, or if the targeted consumers were Muslims (fat chance), then there might be a problem. But, since the number of copies of the game to be sold in Islam countries is likely to be approximately zero (margin of error + or - 0), the idea that the content of the game is offensive to Muslims is absurd to say the least. There is a difference between altering a game if potential sales might be affected due to its content bothering intended users and altering a game for people who are never likely to even see the damn thing.

[ImaginalDisc]

Damn, and I was kinda looking forward to playing it.

Just for that, I'm going to throw a copy of the Koran through a wood chipper. When Islam's slapped, frankly, it should take it and like it, and not a single soul should concede an inch to it.

It's not even a slap. The musicians tried to bring a lyrical section of the Koran into a beautiful peice of music, for the aesthetic value of the words.

[I Ratant]

...
No group has a RIGHT to have their symbols treated in any particular way, but it's a reasonable human action to try not to piss people off ....
.
If the p.o'd folks have a history of killing everyone they can in retaliation, in the name of peace of course.
A dead infidel is quite quiet!

[Cavemonster]

And if a Christian or Muslim demands a copy of Philip Pullman's work to be removed from their local bookshop -because it offends them just by existing near them- should the owner remove it, just because he realises it doesn't effect the shop itself? If he doesn't, is that 'jerky'? Or is the jerk the person who demands something that they never have to look at again be removed?

Wow, you really haven't read anything I wrote, have you?

[Cavemonster]

I don't see how it's unreasonable for any group who feels offended for any reason to express that. That's the most basic freedom of speech. Are you saying an artist can make any kind of statement, but those responding to the art should be limited in their expression?

Here's where the Islamic protest get's messed up.
1) As with every large group, Islam is hugely diverse.
2) There is a history of violent reactions to offense from some Islamic groups.
3) Most of us in the west are far less familiar with Islamic taboo so it seems to come out of left field.

So to some people it seems like they are lodging a complaint against something trivial and threatening violence if they don't get their way. This gets kinda sticky because just as with the cartoon, it is very possible some violent nuts might take up any cause. Should that prevent peaceful Muslims from communicating their grievances?

No one has a right not to be offended, but the ability to communicate what you think is wrong is essential, even if that wrong seems trivial.

[Undesired Walrus]

Wow, you really haven't read anything I wrote, have you?

I have, I understand what you are saying cavemonster. I quote 'I personally think it's kind of jerky to ignore a large group of offended people when a simple change that doesn't effect the message of the piece can make everybody happy'.. Now, a book by Philip Pullman, can offend a Muslim or Christian. Is the manager of the bookshop a jerk if ignores their requests when it would be a simple change to take it off display?

[Undesired Walrus]

3) Most of us in the west are far less familiar with Islamic taboo so it seems to come out of left field.

Except there is no longer a 'we westerners' and a 'they Muslims' anymore. Take a walk in Walthamstow for instance, and you will see that Muslims are ingrained in western society. The chap mentioned in the OP has a heavy British accent, for instance.

[gtc]

Recently Fallout 3 had a dispute with only Australia over its depictions of real-world drug use. I think instead of either getting a higher rating or unable to distibute it there the producers decided to slightly change the drug-taking animation, and to rename "heroin" to "med-X". This'll be applied to all copies worldwide.

Just an aside, I believe it was morphine that was renamed med-X. Australia effectively bans videogames that aren't considered suitable for 15 year olds to play without adult supervision so they couldn't ask for a higher rating.

[ImaginalDisc]

Just an aside, I believe it was morphine that was renamed med-X. Australia effectively bans videogames that aren't considered suitable for 15 year olds to play without adult supervision so they couldn't ask for a higher rating.

Blasting people with futuristic weaponry and turning them into ludicrous gibs is OK, but injecting yourself with morphine when you're badly wounded, which is pretty much the correct way to handle a bad wound if you're stranded somewhere, is not?

[gtc]

I think it was a real over-reaction to recall the game and delay its release and there was an Australian muslim leader (who is hardly a moderate) who said that there was really no problem with a few lines in a song.

I think the problem is that there are some very vocal muslims who over-react to minor perceived slights against Islam and, coupled with the minority who reactly violenty, they make Islam appear to be much more intolerant than it really is. It also leads to an us-vs-them attitude, when the reality is that videogames are sold in the Middle East and Muslims in the West do play them as well.

These attitudes certainly aren't limited to Muslims.

[gtc]

Blasting people with futuristic weaponry and turning them into ludicrous gibs is OK, but injecting yourself with morphine when you're badly wounded, which is pretty much the correct way to handle a bad wound if you're stranded somewhere, is not?


Our fragile little minds could be warped by such things.

[Cavemonster]

I have, I understand what you are saying cavemonster. I quote 'I personally think it's kind of jerky to ignore a large group of offended people when a simple change that doesn't effect the message of the piece can make everybody happy'.. Now, a book by Philip Pullman, can offend a Muslim or Christian. Is the manager of the bookshop a jerk if ignores their requests when it would be a simple change to take it off display?

Did you just decide to skip over "doesn't effect the message of the piece"?

[Cavemonster]

Except there is no longer a 'we westerners' and a 'they Muslims' anymore. Take a walk in Walthamstow for instance, and you will see that Muslims are ingrained in western society. The chap mentioned in the OP has a heavy British accent, for instance.

Did you just decide to skip over "Most of us"?

[korenyx]

And if a Christian or Muslim demands a copy of Philip Pullman's work to be removed from their local bookshop -because it offends them just by existing near them- should the owner remove it, just because he realises it doesn't effect the shop itself? If he doesn't, is that 'jerky'? Or is the jerk the person who demands something that they never have to look at again be removed?


I am reminded of a pastor (who would not tell me his name or his church) who complained about the gay magazines and wanted them put behind the bookstore counter. He said nothing about wanting to put the lesbian magazines back there.

[Policenaut]

http://ax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/browserRedirect?url=itms%253A%252F%252Fax.phobos.a pple.com.edgesuite.net%252FWebObjects%252FMZStore. woa%252Fwa%252FviewAlbum%253Fi%253D167315285%2526i d%253D167315125%2526s%253D143441%2526v0%253DWWW-NAUS-ITUWEEKLY-IPOD%25252BITUNES

There's a link to the beginning of the song in question: Tapha Niang. It's good. And this "controversy" is idiotic.

[Undesired Walrus]

Did you just decide to skip over "doesn't effect the message of the piece"?

Do some people enjoy the book? Sure. What message is effected by the removal of a Pullman book? None.

Would some people enjoy that song in the videogame? Sure.

[ImaginalDisc]

Do some people enjoy the book? Sure. What message is effected by the removal of a Pullman book? None.

Would some people enjoy that song in the videogame? Sure.

Wait, you're saying that is OK for one vocal bigot to have Pullman's books removed from a bookstore, and that it wouldn't effect any message? What about Pullman's message? What about Pullman's right to do business with the bookstore? What about everyone else's right to not have their lives dictated to them by a single vocal idot?

[richardm]

Wait, you're saying that is OK for one vocal bigot to have Pullman's books removed from a bookstore, and that it wouldn't effect any message? What about Pullman's message? What about Pullman's right to do business with the bookstore? What about everyone else's right to not have their lives dictated to them by a single vocal idot?

I'm not sure that he is saying that, no. It's a bit more of a rhetorical question.

[gtc]

He seems to be against either being pulled.

[ImaginalDisc]

Hmm. I didn't read it that way, but it's possible.

[Undesired Walrus]

Given my attitude in this thread being against any form of censorship, it would be strange to change that position now.

I was saying that the removal of Pullman's book wouldn't really effect the 'message' of the bookshelf (People can always get his books online), yet I doubt cavemonster would call the bookshop owner who refuses to remove the book a jerk.

[ImaginalDisc]

Given my attitude in this thread being against any form of censorship, it would be strange to change that position now.

I was saying that the removal of Pullman's book wouldn't really effect the 'message' of the bookshelf (People can always get his books online), yet I doubt cavemonster would call the bookshop owner who refuses to remove the book a jerk.

Got it, thanks. Somehow I think missed an implict step there.

[Almo]

I agree with Cavemonster that people have a right to complain and businesses can respond to that if they so choose. I also agree with much of what M. Zuhdi Jasser says in post #20.

But what's fundamental, in my opinion, is that this was a business decision. Business decisions are usually more concerned with what will earn money than with moral principles. For whatever reason, the Danish newspaper found it made sense to publish the Mohammed cartoons. I'm glad they took that stand for freedom of expression. At the same time, I can see that it's Sony's prerogative to pull LBP if they were worried about bad publicity.

[Matteo Martini]

In my opinion, they did that on purpose to get some free press attention

[gtc]

I am not sure that they needed free publicity; it is already a massive game and the people who wanting to buy it have been forced to wait. Not to mention the huge cost from pulping the original version and making and distributing the new version.