Katika Qur'ani, Allah anawaagiza waumini wazungumze wao kwa wao kwa maneno ya haki, wasidhihakiane wala kutukanana, na wasijione kuwa bora kuliko wengine. Aya katika Suratul Hujurat inawaonya waumini:

In the Qur’ān, Allāh instructs the believers to address one another in fair terms, not to ridicule and insult one another and consider one’s self better than others. The verse in Sūrah al-Ḥujarāt cautions the faithful:

49:11 - Enyi mlioamini, kundi moja la wanaume lisiwadharau kundi jingine, huenda likawa bora kuliko wao; wala kundi moja la wanawake lisiwadharau kundi jingine, huenda likawa bora kuliko wao; wala msisemeane vibaya; wala msitumiane majina ya kuudhi. Ni uovu ulioje kuitwa mwenye fitina baada ya kuamini! Wasiotubu tabia hii, hao ndio madhalimu.

49:11 - Believers, no one group of men should jeer at another, who may after all be better than them; no one group of women should jeer at another, who may after all be better than them; do not speak ill of one another; do not use offensive nicknames for one another. How bad it is to be called a mischief-maker a after accepting faith! Those who do not repent of this behaviour are evildoers.

Mtu aliyesema ‘Aṭā ibn Abī Rabāh alisema kwamba onyo hilo linahusu kumwambia ndugu yako, “Ewe mbwa, ewe punda, ewe nguruwe.”85 Kudhalilisha utu daima huanza kwa lugha, na mara nyingi hufuatiwa na picha. Tunaona hili katika historia yote. Wakati wa Maangamizi ya Wayahudi, Wanazi waliwaelezea Wayahudi kuwa Untermenschen—duni kibinadamu. Waliwaita Wayahudi panya na kuwaonyesha kama wadudu wa kuenezwa magonjwa, katika kila kitu kuanzia vijitabu vya kijeshi hadi vitabu vya watoto. Wahutu waliohusika katika mauaji ya kimbari ya Rwanda waliwaita Watutsi “mende”. Watu wa asili mara nyingi hutajwa kama “washenzi”. Waserbia waliwaita Wabosnia “wageni”. Wamiliki wa watumwa katika historia yote waliwachukulia watumwa kama wanyama duni wasio binadamu.

‘Aṭā ibn Abī Rabāh said the warning is with respect to saying to your brother, “O dog, O donkey, O pig.”85 Dehumanisation always starts with language, often followed by images. We see this throughout history. During the Holocaust, Nazis described Jews as Untermenschen—subhuman. They called Jews rats and depicted them as disease-carrying rodents in everything from military pamphlets to children’s books. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis “cockroaches”. Indigenous people are often referred to as “savages”. Serbs called Bosnians “aliens”. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals.

Dhana potofu ndizo zinazopotosha mtazamo wa mtu kuhusu kundi fulani. Mitazamo ya watu kuhusu wengine wakati mwingine huthibitisha dhana potofu zilizopo katika jamii, zilizoenezwa kupitia vyombo vya habari, vitabu vya shule, filamu, vituo vya kidini na miongoni mwa watu. Abdo anaonyesha kutojua kwa kina kulikomo miongoni mwa Wamarekani kuhusu uwepo wa Waislamu katika Amerika. Hali ya kuwaona Waislamu kama wageni wa mbali inaweza kupungua iwapo wangejua kwamba Waislamu wamekuwepo Marekani tangu zama za ukoloni, kwa kuwa watumwa wengi waliopelekwa Amerika kutoka Afrika Magharibi walikuwa Waislamu. Mwandishi anataja majina kama Bullaly (Bilali), Mahomet (Muḥammad), Walley (Wali)… ili kufichua mandhari ya tamaduni zilizochanganyika ambazo Waislamu hao walifungwa nazo.86

Stereotypes are what skew a person’s perception of a group. People’s perceptions of others can sometimes confirm existing cultural stereotypes disseminated in the media, in school textbooks, films, religious centres and among people. Abdo highlights the deep-seated ignorance Americans have of the Muslim presence in the Americas. The distant Otherness they might look on Muslims with is not all too distant if they had known that Muslims have been in the United States from colonial times, since many slaves that were brought to America from West Africa were Muslim. The author points to names like Bullaly (Bilali), Mahomet (Muḥammad), Walley (Wali)…to unpeel the syncretised landscapes to which those Muslims were bound.86

Katika Sura Yusufu, kuna jambo la kugusa sana linalohitaji kutafakariwa. Wakati ndugu za Nabii Yusufu walipokusanyika, wakichochewa na wivu wa kiafya, ili kumdhuru Yusufu, walisema:

In Sūrah Yūsuf, there is a very touching point that requires our reflection. When the brothers of Prophet Yūsuf gather together, motivated by a pathological envy, to do harm to Yūsuf, they say:

12:9 - [Mmoja wao alisema], ‘Mwueni Yusufu au mtupeni katika nchi nyingine, na uangalifu wa baba yenu utageukia kwenu peke yenu. Baada ya hapo mtakuwa wema.’ 12:10 - [Mwingine wao] alisema, ‘Msimwue Yusufu, bali, ikiwa lazima, mtupeni ndani ya kina kilichofichika cha kisima ambapo msafara fulani unaweza kumchukua.’ Tunaona kwanza kwamba Nabii Yusufu anatambulishwa kwa heshima kupitia jina lake. Katika aya inayofuata, ndugu mkubwa anapochukua uongozi, akipinga kwa dhamiri pendekezo la awali, naye pia anamtaja Yusufu kwa jina lake. Pendekezo analotoa pia ni laini kuliko lile la kwanza. Ambapo kiwakilishi “yeye” kama katika “Msimwue” kingeweza kuwasilisha hoja hiyo hiyo, Mwenyezi Mungu (SWT) badala yake anamweleza ndugu huyo akisema “Msimwue Yusufu”.

12:9 - [One of them said], ‘Kill Joseph or banish him to another land, and your father’s attention will be free to turn to you. After that you can be righteous.’ 12:10 - [Another of them] said, ‘Do not kill Joseph, but, if you must, throw him into the hidden depths of a well where some caravan may pick him up.’ We notice in the first instance that Prophet Yūsuf is introduced with respect to his name. In the subsequent verse when the older brother takes the lead, conscientiously objecting to the initial proposal, he too mentions Yūsuf by his name. What he also proposes is less severe than the first proposition. Where the pronoun “him” as in “Do not kill him” could have conveyed the same point, Allāh instead describes the brother saying “Do not kill Yūsuf”.

Baadhi ya wanazuoni wanapendekeza kwamba hili huenda likawa ni kuimarisha uhusiano wa kifamilia, na kwamba heshima ya uhai wa binadamu bado ipo katika tukio hilo.

Some scholars suggest that this may be to reinforce the familial bond, and that the sanctity of human life is still present in the encounter.

Kutaja ni kumpa mtu utambulisho, yaani kumpa mwingine hisia ya kuwa mali ya kitu fulani. Jina ni kitu kinachochaguliwa na kuteuliwa, kisha kupewa mtu. Linaamsha hisia za moyoni, likileta kumbukumbu za kuzaliwa na sherehe, za familia na furaha.

Naming is personalising, the attributing to another a sense of belonging. The name is something chosen and selected and thereafter conferred onto someone. It evokes a sense of the sentimental, conjuring up thoughts of birth and ceremony, of family and happiness.

Kuweka jina ni sawa na kumpa mtu utambulisho kupitia maana zilizomo ndani ya jina lenyewe, la wazo bora, sifa, au haiba fulani. Muislamu anaweza kuanza mazungumzo yake kwa kujitambulisha na kumuuliza mwenzake jina lake ni nani. Mara nyingine jina lenyewe linaweza kufungua mazungumzo mazima.

Naming is akin to bestowing of an identity through the connotations of the name itself, of an ideal, a characteristic, a persona. The Muslim might begin his conversations by introducing himself and asking another what his or her name is. One can sometimes find that the name itself can open up an entire conversation.

Katika Maangamizi ya Holokausti, walinzi wa Kinazi walipowazungumzia wafungwa walikwepa kutumia majina au hata maneno kama "watu", "binadamu" au "wanaume". Badala yake waliwaita "vipande" au "vitu". Lengo lilikuwa kuwavua waathiriwa heshima yote na kufanya maisha yao yaonekane hayana maana. Maneno kama "maiti" au "mwathiriwa" yalipigwa marufuku; wafu walifananishwa na vipande vya mbao, visivyo na umuhimu wowote. Katika barua ya siri, iliyoandikwa tarehe 5 Juni 1942, binadamu waliopangiwa kifo katika vyumba vya gesi vinavyotembea huko Chelmno daima wanaitwa "mizigo" au "vitu". Wahalifu wa mauaji ya halaiki mara chache huwaona waathiriwa wao kama watu binafsi; badala yake huwaona kama rundo la miili na maiti. Tunaposikia habari za vifo vya maelfu ya waathiriwa, idadi hiyo haituwezeshi kumtambua kila maisha kwa jinsi yalivyo. Ukatili wenyewe unajitokeza wazi, lakini huzuni ya msiba wa kibinafsi mara nyingi hutupita. Walinzi wa Kinazi walilazimika kuhakikisha kwamba kadi za utambulisho zinaondolewa kwa waathiriwa wao, kwamba vyumba vya gesi vinachukua nafasi ya mauaji ya papo hapo, na kwamba waathiriwa hawaitwi kwa majina yao wala kwa maneno yanayoonyesha uwepo wa kibinadamu.

In the Holocaust when speaking of prisoners, Nazi guards avoided using names or even words like ‘people’ or ‘individuals’ or even ‘men’, referring to them instead as “pieces” or “items”. The purpose was to strip victims of all importance and render their lives meaningless. Using words such as “corpse” or “victim” were forbidden; the dead were instead akin to blocks of wood, completely irrelevant. In a secret memorandum, dated June 5, 1942, the human beings marked for death in mobile gas chambers at Chelmno are always referred to as “the cargo” or “the items.” Perpetrators of genocide rarely see their victims as individuals, seeing them instead as a mass of bodies and corpses. When we hear of the deaths of thousands of victims, the number disallows a personalising with each life. The atrocity indeed stands out, but the sorrow of a personal tragedy often escapes us. Nazi guards had to ensure that identity cards were removed from their victims, that gas chambers took the place of summary executions, that victims were never addressed by their names or even in terms that denoted human presence.

Kwa kutumia mtazamo wa wimbi la huruma ya kitaifa lililoibuka kutoka Shule ya Msingi ya Sandy Hook huko Connecticut tarehe 14 Desemba 2012, George Monbiot alijaribu kuunganisha huruma ya kibinadamu kati ya watoto wa Kimarekani waliouawa katika shambulio la bunduki katika Shule ya Msingi ya Sandy Hook huko Connecticut tarehe 14 Desemba 2012 na watoto waliouawa nchini Pakistan kutokana na mashambulizi ya ndege zisizo na rubani za Marekani. Katika mfano wa Monbiot, ni matokeo ya Vita vya Iraq, sambamba na msimamo wa gazeti hilo wa kukosoa vita hivyo, na athari zake kwa watoto ndizo zinazosisitizwa. Hata hivyo, mtazamo wa huruma, yaani kuunganisha aina zote mbili za waathirika, unakusudia kuonyesha jinsi tunavyoweka maisha tofauti yaliyopotea ndani ya miundo yetu ya kiakili. Monbiot anaweka wazi watoto wengi waliouawa katika mashambulizi ya ndege zisizo na rubani yaliyoidhinishwa na Rais Bush na Rais Obama, 64 katika miaka mitatu ya kwanza ya Obama madarakani na 69

Using the media framing of a national outpouring of compassion which emerged from the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut on December 14th 2012, George Monbiot sought to correlate humanitarian compassion between American children murdered in the gun attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut on December 14th 2012 and children murdered in Pakistan from American drone strikes. In Monbiot’s example, it is the outcome of the Iraq War, in line with the newspaper’s critical position on the war, and its effect on children that is highlighted. However, the empathic outlook, the merging together of both types of victims is intended to show how we situate disparate lives lost in our cognitive schemas. Monbiot brings to light the dozens of children killed in drone strikes authorised by Presidents Bush and Obama, 64 in the first three years of Obama’s time in office and 69

watoto waliuawa katika moja ya mashambulizi ya awali ya Bush. Yeye anatoa maoni kuhusu kutojali kwa wahanga watoto wa mashambulizi ya ndege zisizo na rubani za Marekani kama sehemu ya mchakato wa kuwanyima utu, 'wao ni wa mwingine: wa ulimwengu usio wa kibinadamu wa wadudu na nyasi na tishu.'87

children killed in one of Bush’s earlier strikes. He comments on the indifference to the child victims of the American drone attacks as being part of a process of depersonalisation, ‘they belong to the other: to the non-human world of bugs and grass and tissue.’87

Mnamo 2018 kipindi cha hali halisi cha BBC One, ‘Killer in Our Classroom: Never Again’88, kilitokana na mauaji ya shule ya Parkland, Florida, yaliyotokea Februari 2018. Hili lilikuwa shambulio ambalo Nikolas Cruz, mwenye umri wa miaka 19, aliingia katika Shule ya Upili ya Marjory Stoneman Douglas na kuwaua wanafunzi kumi na wanne na wafanyakazi watatu wa shule. Alikuwa amewafuata wanafunzi wa shule hiyo waliokuwa wameandaa kampeni kubwa iliyoongozwa na vijana, wakitaka sheria kali zaidi za umiliki wa bunduki nchini Marekani. Sehemu kubwa ya nguvu ya kihisia ya kipindi hicho inalenga hadithi za baadhi ya wanafunzi walioathiriwa na shambulio hilo. Walipoonyeshwa mchoro wa Jengo 12-Ghorofa ya Kwanza, wenye nukta zilizotawanyika katika madarasa mbalimbali zikionyesha mahali watu walipofariki wakati wa shambulio, mmoja wa wanafunzi alisema: “Kila mara nukta ilipogeuka bluu, au nukta ilipogeuka njano, ilikuwa kama vile ninamjua huyo mtu, na ilikuwa ya kuhuzunisha sana.” Mwingine alisema: “Ninajua kila nukta, na ninajua ni nani kila mmoja wa hizo nukta, kila moja kabisa. Na nilihisi kana kwamba nimelipitia tena lile lote.” Mwingine alisema: “Jambo baya zaidi ni kwamba unapoipa nukta jina, inauma.” Wanafunzi hao waliweza kuweka nyuma ya kila ‘nukta’ maisha yote, uzoefu na kumbukumbu nzima, na hivyo kuwezesha kuviweka maisha hayo kama yenye thamani na ya kupendwa, ili kueleza nyakati, thamani na vipaumbele tofauti.

A 2018 BBC One documentary ‘Killer in Our Classroom: Never Again’88 was based on the February 2018 Parkland, Florida school shooting. This was a shooting in which 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz entered Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and killed fourteen pupils and three members of staff. He followed students from the school who had organised a mass youth-led campaign calling for stricter gun laws in America. Part of the emotive thrust of the documentary centres on the stories of some of the students affected by the shooting. On being shown a graphic of Building 12-First Floor with scattering of dots in different classrooms indicating where people died during the shooting, one of the students stated that “Every time a dot would turn blue, or a dot would turn yellow, like I knew who that was, and it was just really upsetting.” A second said that “I know every single dot, and I know who every single one of those dots are, like every single one. And I felt as if I just like experienced it all over again”. Another stated that “The worst thing is that when you do give names to the dots, it hurts”. The students were able to place an entire life, experience and memory behind the ‘dot’, and thus enabling the framing of those lives as worthy and treasured to articulate different temporalities, values and priorities.

Kwa Kristoffer Goldsmith, Sajenti katika Jeshi la Marekani aliyepelekwa Sadr City kati ya Januari na Desemba 2005, ni kuenea kwa picha za mateso ndani ya fahamu zake kulikomfikisha kwenye hatua ya kupinga kuvuliwa utu wa watu wa Iraq. Goldsmith anaelezea picha ya mwanaume ‘ambaye hana uso, hakuna ngozi iliyobaki kichwani mwake’. Picha hiyo, kwa ‘kutokamilika’ kwake, iliwakilisha mwathirika anayestahili kuombolezwa. Ilimfanya Goldsmith kutambua ubinadamu wa mwanaume huyo wa Iraq: “huyu ni kaka wa mtu, huyu ni mume wa mtu, huyu ni mwana wa mtu, na huyu ni binamu wa mtu. Sababu pekee tunayoweza kuwa hatuguswi nayo ni kwa kuwa wao si weupe, si wanajeshi wa Kimarekani.”89 Katika Vita vya Iraq, Mwingine wa Kiiraq anapitia upotevu wa uhalisia na kuwa ‘wa kivuli’, na tunaona jinsi kuvuliwa utu kunavyofanya kazi kama kitangulizi cha vurugu na kusababisha unyanyasaji na vurugu kupitia kukosekana kwa mfumo wa kuutambua uhai uliopotea.

For Kristoffer Goldsmith, Sergeant in the United States Army deployed between January-December 2005 in Sadr City, it was the diffusion of images of suffering into his self-consciousness that brought him to a point of contesting the dehumanisation of Iraqi people. Goldsmith describes a photograph of a man ‘missing his face, there is no skin left on his head’. The photograph was in its ‘incompleteness’ representative of a grievable victim. It led to Goldsmith recognising the humanness of the Iraqi man: “this is somebody’s brother, this is somebody’s husband, this is somebody’s son, and this is somebody’s cousin. The only reason that we’re desensitized to it is because they’re not white, they’re not American soldiers.”89 In the Iraq War the Iraqi Other undergoes a derealisation and becomes ‘spectral’ and we see how dehumanisation functions as a precursor to violence and results in abuse and violence through omission of a frame for the life lost.

Katika tamthilia ya Shakespeare, The Tempest, mawazo ya kwanza ya mhusika Trinculo anapokutana na Caliban ni kwamba anaweza kuwekwa maonyeshoni nchini Uingereza: "Hakuna mpumbavu wa sikukuu huko asiyetoa kipande cha fedha...Wakati hawatoi hata senti kumsaidia ombaomba aliyelemaa, watatoa pauni kumi kuona Mhindi aliyekufa." Maonyesho ya picha za ukatili uliofanyiwa watu wenye ngozi nyeusi katika nchi za kigeni yanaendeleza zawadi hii, bila kujali mambo yanayozuia maonyesho ya aina hiyo kwa wahanga wetu wa ghasia wenyewe; Mwingine, hata asipokuwa adui, anaonekana kama mtu wa kutazamwa tu, si mtu (kama sisi) ambaye pia anaona.

In the Shakespeare play, The Tempest, the character Trinculo’s first thought upon coming across Caliban is that he could be put on exhibit in England: ‘not a holiday fool there but would give a piece of silver…When they will not give a doit to relieve a lame beggar, they will lay out ten to see a dead Indian.’ The exhibition in photographs of cruelties inflicted on those with darker complexions in exotic countries continues this offering, oblivious to the considerations that deter such displays of our own victims of violence; the Other, even when not an enemy, is regarded only as someone to be seen, not someone (like us) who also sees.

Sontag anatutaka sisi tuzingatie askari wa Taliban aliyejeruhiwa akiomba maisha yake, ambaye hatima yake ilionyeshwa kwa uwazi katika The New York Times, na ambaye pia alikuwa na mke, watoto, wazazi, dada na kaka, ambao baadhi yao huenda siku moja wakakutana na picha tatu za rangi za mume wao, baba yao, mwana wao, ndugu yao akichinjwa – ikiwa hawajaziona tayari.90

Sontag calls on us to consider the wounded Taliban soldier begging for his life, whose fate was pictured prominently in The New York Times and who also had a wife, children, parents, sisters and brothers, some of whom may one day come across the three colour photographs of their husband, father, son, brother being slaughtered – if they have not already seen them.90