在《古兰经》中,真主指示信士们要以公正的言辞彼此称呼,不要相互嘲笑、侮辱,也不要自认为比别人更优秀。《胜利的寝室》章中的经文告诫信众说:

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:

{信道的人们啊!一群男人不要嘲笑另一群男人,因为被嘲笑的也许比他们更好;一群女人不要嘲笑另一群女人,因为被嘲笑的也许比她们更好。你们不要互相诽谤,不要彼此用难听的绰号称呼。信道之后再被称为作恶者,这是多么恶劣的名称!不悔改这些行为的人,才是不义的人。}

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.

“阿塔·伊本·阿比·拉巴赫说，这一警告针对的是对你的兄弟说“喂，狗啊，驴啊，猪啊”。⁸⁵ 非人化总是从语言开始，往往随后出现图像。纵观历史，我们都能看到这一点。在大屠杀期间，纳粹称犹太人为“次等人”（Untermenschen），即亚人类。从军事小册子到儿童读物，他们把犹太人称作老鼠，并将其描绘成携带疾病的啮齿动物。参与卢旺达大屠杀的胡图人称图西人为“蟑螂”。原住民常被称为“野蛮人”。塞尔维亚人称波斯尼亚人为“外星人”。历史上的奴隶主则把奴隶视为次等的动物。”

‘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.

刻板印象会扭曲人们对某个群体的认知。人们对他人的看法有时会印证媒体、学校教科书、电影、宗教场所以及民间早已存在的文化刻板印象。阿卜杜指出，美国人对穆斯林在美洲的存在普遍缺乏了解。他们对穆斯林所持的那种遥远的“他者”观感，如果知道穆斯林自殖民时代起就已在美国，便不会显得那么遥远：许多从西非被贩运到美洲的奴隶本身就是穆斯林。作者列举了布拉利（Bilali）、马霍米特（Muḥammad）、沃利（Wali）等名字，借以揭开那些穆斯林所处的、相互交融的文化景观。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

在《尤素福章》中，有一个非常动人的地方值得我们深思。当尤素福先知的兄弟们因病态的嫉妒而聚在一起，图谋加害尤素福时，他们说：

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 - [其中一人]说："你们把优素福杀掉，或者把他放逐到别的地方，你们父亲的注意力就会专注于你们了。之后你们就可以行善了。" 12:10 - [另一人]说："不要杀优素福，如果你们一定要这么做，就把他扔进井底的暗处，或许会有某支商队把他捡走。" 我们首先注意到，在第一处经文中，先知优素福是以其名字被引出的，以示尊重。随后，当哥哥出面主持，反对最初的提议时，他同样用名字称呼优素福。他提出的方案也比最初的提议温和得多。"不要杀他"中的代词"他"本可以表达同样的意思，但安拉却让这位哥哥说的是"不要杀优素福"。

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”.

有些学者认为，这样做或许是为了加强家庭的纽带，并且在这种相遇之中，人的生命的神圣性依然存在。

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.

命名是一种个性化的行为，是将归属感赋予另一个人。名字是经过选择和挑选，然后授予某人的。它唤起一种情感上的联想，让人想到出生与仪式、家庭与幸福。

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.

命名就如同通过名字本身所蕴含的内涵赋予一种身份，一种理想、一种特质、一种人格形象。穆斯林在交谈时可能会先介绍自己，并询问对方的名字。人们有时会发现，一个名字本身就能引出一整段对话。

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.

在大屠杀期间,谈到囚犯时,纳粹看守刻意避免使用姓名,甚至避免使用“人”“个人”,甚至“男人”之类的词,而是把他们称为“件”或“物品”。其目的是剥夺受害者的一切尊严,使他们的生命变得毫无意义。“尸体”或“受害者”之类的词被禁止使用;死者被视为与木块无异,全然无足轻重。在1942年6月5日的一份秘密备忘录中,在赫尔姆诺使用移动毒气室即将被处死的人,始终被称为“货物”或“物品”。种族灭绝的施暴者很少把受害者看作个体,而是视其为一堆肉体与尸体。当我们听到成千上万名受害者死亡的消息时,这个数字使人无法为每一条生命赋予个性。这场暴行固然触目惊心,但个人悲剧的痛苦却常常被我们忽略。纳粹看守必须确保夺走受害者的身份证件,必须以毒气室取代即决处决,必须从不以受害者的名字称呼他们,甚至不使用任何表明其为人的称谓。

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.

根据桑迪胡克小学所引发的全国性同情浪潮这一媒体框架,乔治·蒙比奥特试图将两类人道主义同情联系起来:一是2012年12月14日康涅狄格州桑迪胡克小学枪击事件中被杀害的美国儿童,二是巴基斯坦境内因美国无人机袭击而丧生的儿童。在蒙比奥特的例子中,被强调的是伊拉克战争的后果及其对儿童的影响,这与该报对战争的批判立场相一致。然而,这种共情的视角、两类受害者的融合,旨在说明我们如何将各自不同的生命损失纳入我们的认知图式之中。蒙比奥特揭示了在布什和奥巴马两任总统授权下无人机袭击中死亡的数十名儿童,其中奥巴马上任头三年就有64名,另有69名……

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

……在布什早先的一次空袭中被炸死的儿童。他评论说，人们对美国无人机袭击中儿童受害者的漠不关心，是一个非人格化过程的一部分，“他们属于他者：属于虫子、青草和组织构成的非人类世界。”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

2018年BBC One纪录片《教室里的杀手：永不再发生》（Killer in Our Classroom: Never Again）以2018年2月佛罗里达州帕克兰校园枪击案为基础拍摄。在这起枪击案中，19岁的尼古拉斯·克鲁兹（Nikolas Cruz）闯入马乔里·斯通曼·道格拉斯高中，杀害了14名学生和3名教职员工。他还跟踪了该校一些学生，这些学生曾发起一场由青年主导的大规模运动，呼吁美国收紧枪支法律。这部纪录片情感张力的一部分集中在部分受枪击案影响的学生的故事上。当看到“12号楼一层”的示意图，图上以散布的圆点标示枪击案中不同教室里有人死亡的位置时，一名学生说道：“每当一个点变成蓝色，或者一个点变成黄色，我都知道那是谁，这真的很让人难受。”另一名学生说：“我认识每一个点，我知道每一个点代表的是谁，真的，每一个都认识。我感觉自己好像又把那一切经历了一遍。”还有一名学生说：“最糟糕的是，当你给那些点命名的时候，真的很痛。”这些学生能够在每一个“点”的背后，看到一整个人生、一段经历和一份记忆，由此将这些生命框定为值得珍视、值得重视的存在，从而表达出不同的时间观、价值观与优先事项。

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.

对于美国陆军中士克里斯托弗·戈德史密斯（Kristoffer Goldsmith）而言，2005年1月至12月期间他在萨德尔城（Sadr City）服役，正是那些痛苦影像逐渐渗入他的自我意识，使他开始反思并抗拒对伊拉克人的非人化。戈德史密斯描述了一张照片，照片中的男子“没有了脸，头上已经没有皮肤”。这张照片因其“不完整性”而代表了一个值得哀悼的受害者。它促使戈德史密斯认识到这个伊拉克人的人性：“这是某人的兄弟，这是某人的丈夫，这是某人的儿子，也是某人的表亲。我们之所以对此麻木，只是因为他们不是白人，不是美国士兵。”89 在伊拉克战争中，伊拉克这一“他者”经历了非现实化，变得“幽灵化”，我们由此看到，非人化如何充当暴力的前奏，并通过对所失生命缺乏框架化的承认，导致虐待与暴力。

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.

在莎士比亚的戏剧《暴风雨》中，角色特林鸟罗（Trinculo）初见凯列班（Caliban）时的第一个念头，就是可以把他拿到英国去展览："没有一个节日的傻瓜不愿意为此付一块银币……他们连一枚小钱都舍不得施舍给瘸腿的乞丐，却愿意掏出十块钱去看一个死去的印第安人。"在照片中展示异国他乡肤色较深者所遭受的暴行，延续的正是这种做法；展示者全然不顾那些能够阻止此类展示的考量，而这些考量本可以用来保护我们自身的暴力受害者。那个他者，即便并不是敌人，也只被视为供人观看的对象，而不是像我们一样，同样也能看的人。

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.

桑塔格呼吁我们去思考那位身负重伤、苦苦哀求饶命的塔利班士兵。他的遭遇曾在《纽约时报》上醒目地刊出。他也有妻子、子女、父母，还有姐妹兄弟。他们中的一些人，或许有朝一日会看到这三张彩色照片，照片上他们的丈夫、父亲、儿子、兄弟正在被杀——如果他们还没有见过的话。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