A thoughtful article;definitely worth a read
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims Deserve the Same Respect as Christians or Jews
Edgar M. Bronfman
Although freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both fundamental rights, they sometimes come into conflict with each other, as is the case with the caricatures recently published in the Danish newspaper “Jyllands-Posten” depicting the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This has provoked uproar among Muslims, not just in Denmark, but across the Islamic world as it is widely understood that Islam forbids the depicting of Muhammad.
The issue at stake here is not “self-censorship”, which Flemming Rose, the newspaper’s culture editor, claims has befallen Europe since the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. It is whether respect for other religious beliefs, traditions and practices really applies to everybody, including Muslims.
We prefer the word “respect” to “tolerance” because to be “tolerated” is not a positive notion, and in addition “respect” is not a one-way concept; it is mutual. If the cartoons in question were deliberately made and published to provoke Muslims and to stir up public opinion in Denmark, as Rose seems to suggest, something has gone wrong.
What the cartoons managed to do was to offend all Muslims instead of focusing on those fanatics that actually merit criticism.
Sometimes, provocations are necessary to wake people up. Over the past 30 years, the World Jewish Congress has been no stranger to that. But religious customs, practices, beliefs, should be respected by followers of other religions and nonbelievers alike, because this is a prerequisite for being respected oneself.
Although freedom of speech is an indivisible right, the law may make it an offense to shout “Fire!” in a crowded auditorium as this might cause a panic and physical harm. Words and actions which predictably provoke strong reactions and anger — however unjustified this may be — should be limited at least when it comes to religious beliefs.
Mutual respect and understanding between members of different religions is the key to ending hatred and to creating a better world. We consider desecration of any holy book an insult to ourselves. Desecration of the Qur’an, the Torah, or the Christian Bible, or any religious site should be offensive to all of us. Mutual respect means just that: You respect me and what I stand for, and I respect you and what you stand for.
To consciously provoke and offend the fairly small Muslim minority in Denmark was wrong. Yes, immigrants must integrate in their host societies, be they Muslims, Jews or Christians, while retaining their own identities, beliefs, customs and faiths. Parallel societies can easily become a breeding ground for fanatics, zealots and, ultimately, terrorists. Immigration sometimes fails because immigrants do not make enough effort. But sometimes, it is also made harder because of an intolerant and harsh host country.
It is the job of governments and lawmakers to make sure that immigrants are not treated as newly conquered (as some populists suggest), but with respect. Those who make an effort to integrate should be welcomed with open arms and they should be allowed to make more than just financial contributions to their new countries’ tax coffers.
Over the last two thousand years and until the creation of the State of Israel, Jews have always been a small minority in every country they have settled in. Our ancestors have suffered from pogroms, rampant anti-Semitism and finally the Holocaust.
Lies about Jews, the Jewish faith and traditions have never disappeared. In fact, they are staging a comeback, especially in “Western democracies” which we thought had become immune to anti-Semitism after the horrors of the Holocaust.
Nonetheless, Jewish intellectuals and politicians have always been at the forefront of fighting for human rights, democracy and free speech. But there are limits to the letter that should be respected, and publishing materials considered offensive by a small religious minority is going too far. Democracies are tested on how they treat their minorities.
Over the decades since the publication of the Second Vatican Council declaration “Nostra Aetate”, the Catholic Church and the Jewish community have been engaged in dialogue with each other. This is a successful example for how centuries-old prejudices and hatred can be overcome by listening to one another instead of just talking about the other. Christians, Jews and Muslims are all children of Abraham, and we should learn what we have in common. After that, our differences might look less significant.
We need to restrain ourselves in what we say about other religions, in how we judge other faiths. We don’t need new laws. We cannot restrict freedom of speech. We need to restrict ourselves. Otherwise, in the end, we will be restricted.
— Edgar M. Bronfman is New York president of the World Jewish Congress.
Those political cartoons can be seen as an attack on the terrorists who use Islam as the justification for their attacks.
Or they may be seen as a critique on Islam itself as actually providing the justification.
There is a real danger if you see them as an attempt to degrade innocent Muslims would never consider political terror and don't support those who do.
This is something worthy of concern but it's not necessarily the case.
And whatever the case about the cartoons, by the far the worst damage to Islam is being done by those who are making this a case of Rushdie II.
The guys who are marching through London with signs that say Exterminate Those Who Criticize Islam. Or Behead Those Who Criticize Islam.
And those wild eyed kooks who tried to trash buildings in Asia.
Even the guys who say "I believe in free speech but not freedom to criticize religion." Didn't free speech begin in the right to criticize religion?
In addition, I've had conversations with people who wondered why, if Muslims are so sensitive of attacks on religion in general, they don't see any Muslims marching in the streets about the anti-semitic cartoons that appear in print in the Muslim world.
Or why there were no big rallies when the Taliban blew up the statues of Buddha in Afghanistan.
And, I've always wondered why no one is marching over the murder of Muslims in Darfur.
So, the selective nature of the righteous anger that we're seeing now also makes it seem less than impressive.
I should note, however, that the when the BBC interviewed people at a march in London, one young guy with a British accent said that while demonstrating against the cartoons was fine, the slogans being displayed were totally outrageous. He's right and I hope there's a lot of people who think like him.
As for Kinsella, I'm glad that he doesn't want to kill that other punk band. But, really, the name of that band has gotta be as wild or wilder than the Danish cartoons. The only difference is North Americans aren't living in the Middle Ages.
If Islam deserves respect, then they need to show the same for Christianity, Hinduism, Bhuddism, Judaism, Zorastrains, etc.
Until I see Muslim leaders renounce the blood libel, renounce the desire to resubject Al-Andalus to slavery, and admit the Protocols of the Elders was indeed a hoax, I refuse to grant Islam the same respect in which I treat Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, Sikhs, etc.
You first.
So the Whore-en says, "I believe that words and images that expose the tenets of a person's faith to hatred should be condemned and, where appropriate, punished."
So what are we to make of his reptilian attacks on Stockwell Day during the 2000 election? Worthy of condemnation and punishment? Even censorship?
You're right. This horrid little snot is hypocritical, and not just over his use of foul language. Anti-religious bigotry was, and will be again, his stock in trade. So file this quote away - now that the Liberal civil war is coming to a close and he can turn his attention to attacking conservative Christians again, he'll give you reason to remember it.
It's interesting that Aji would quote Bronfman. How 'brave' are you, Aji?
Let's see: Do you support the Qu'ranic right to own slaves, or do you renounce slavery? Ah honest, direct answer, please.
Or perhaps a question asked earlier which you've avoided: Aji...
There are scans of ancient Muslim portraits of Muhammed floating about. Were those 15th century Muslim artists in violation of Islamic law? Can you point specifically to where it says in the Qu'ran that one must not make a portrait of your prophet?
You've already said - direct quote from earlier - "A clarification. Ibn Warraq is not a Muslim. He has clearly indicated that he has left Islam. He is a dissident, just not a Muslim one." You were supposed to know that, in the eyes of Islam, Mr. Warraq will always be Muslim, regardless of his action... apparently you forgot or something. So here's your big chance to show us just how much you know.
Warren Kinsella is spot on. Take it from me. I despise the guy, he's a jerk par excellence, but he's nailed the issue this time, and he deserves credit.
"Freedom of speech" is a ruse in this case. It's an alibi for being as insulting and as inflammatory as possible towards a Danish minority. And when European Muslims dare to use those "freedoms," by demonstrating, boycotting, speaking out--somehow that's wrong. They should just silently suck it up. Well, guess what? They won't. Freedom of speech and assembly belong to them too.
As for the ME, that's a different story. The place is a powderkeg. Anything can set it off. Including damfool newspaper editors deliberately spitting in the faces of millions of people. Now it's happening. Surprise, surprise.
What a bunch of nonsense! Blathering on about "tolerance" and "respect" for the delicate sensitivities of Islamofascist frootloops. What about reciprical respect for the rights and freedoms of OUR societies?
We get to watch the cross burning on those Danish flags...do WE launch an intifada over it? No, we write letters to the editor or mutter about it in private. Our ambassadors are threatened with slaughter, embassies set fire, and still the apologists whine about "respect".
The best thing would be for every western paper in the world to reprint those silly cartoons on the front page every single day until the nutters get bored and go home. It's called "desensitization". Get over it already!
Dawg, read Polly over and over until it sinks in. Where in the Muslim world are the Kinsellas calling for Islamic respect for other religions?
I'll answer... Here in the West. Our guest Aji represents the past of Islam, not its future. He is not (yet) a voice for restraint or compassion.
Aji, you were correct to point out that bigots would hide behind freedom of speech rights. We knew that around here already... This blog in particular has been tangling with the issue since it was started.
Yet where is your condemnation of Islamic outrages against other religions? Where is your condemnation of Islamic genocide in places such as Darfur? Where is your indignation at misogyny? Slavery?
Go ahead and quote Bronfman all you want, but it would be interesting if for once you quoted a Muslim who called for respect and restraint withing Islam.
It would be even better if YOU called for restraint and respect within Islam... You can, you know. This blog is open to everyone.
"And when European Muslims dare to use those "freedoms," by demonstrating, boycotting, speaking out--somehow that's wrong. They should just silently suck it up. Well, guess what? They won't. Freedom of speech and assembly belong to them too."
Right up until the first Danish cartoonist gets shot several times, and has an Islamist manifesto pinned to his chest with a dagger, the way Theo Van Gogh was in the Netherlands. Then it is my hope that the Danes will make that mob of temper-tantrum-throwing, ululating, overgrown children wish they had just "silently sucked it up." You know, like grown-ups.
The cartoonists who drew these fairly tame editorial cartoons have gone into hiding with armed guards, for very good reason. It would be worth their lives to live the way they normally do. What about their freedom of speech and assembly?
Inoffensive speech is never banned. Freedom of speech is the freedom to be offensive, or it is nothing. And the notion that all religion must be respected is hogwash. I have no respect for Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Pat Robertson, but I tolerate their existence. Likewise I have no respect for religious beliefs that promote the killing of infidels.
And, quite frankly, the cartoons at issue are quite mild compared to what we see on a regular basis that is intended to offend Christians (not to mention the anti-Semitism of the Arab press), and which is steadfastly defended by many of the same people who now insist that we must not offend Muslims.
"Dawg, read Polly over and over until it sinks in."
OK.
"What a bunch of nonsense! Blathering on… Islamofascist frootloops… apologists whine about "respect"…nutters…Get over it already!"
Now what? :)
"reciprical respect for the rights and freedoms of OUR societies" Apparently, THAT didn't sink in, Dawg. I don't accept for a minute that you "despise" Kinsella. Not when you've deliberately overlooked the obvious.
Speaking of myopia: Aji... Oh Aji... Did you read Mike or Bruce? Will you condemn the asassination of Theo Van Gogh?
[External Link]
Will you condemn the destruction of the Bamiyan statues of Buddha in Afghanistan?
[External Link]
Aji... Your silence speaks volumes. Your failure to condemn the hypocrisies and outrages committed by certain of your coreligionists will brand you a troll for ever... a bigot, a troll, and a sick joke.
Come on Aji... Condemn the outrages. Condemn the religious bigotry of certain members of your own faith. Condemn the genocide, the slavery, the misogyny.
Show your outspoken support for Kamal Nawash... Even the exonerated "bigot" Albertanator supports him. I do. What about YOU, Aji?
What about you?
"I don't accept for a minute that you "despise" Kinsella. Not when you've deliberately overlooked the obvious."
Public record, Bub. Plenty on my site.
Re - from Kinsella:
"(I did so because Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day had repeatedly stated that his religious beliefs had, and would, inform his political beliefs. And because Canadian voters were therefore entitled, at that moment, to fully consider the ramifications of faith-based politics, as Day was then seeking the highest political office in the land.)"
Well Mr. Kinsella, do you take the same position that Muslims or Sikhs or Hindus who are devout should be disqualified from running for public office? Didn't think so, you're little piece of sophistry is really a form of anti-Christian bigotry. Simple and plain.
Thanks for posting it anyway, you've demonstrated your character better then anyone else could have.
FYI what I posted at Warren's comment section:
Warren,
In recounting your Barney escapade, you claim that your concern was not Day's Christianity but its role in public policy. Now, when did the federal government assume a constitutional mandate for education? Do the feds have authority to legislate on the origin of the universe? How then would a person's belief in creationism be any sort of relevant factor in the formulation of public policy?
At least be honest in claiming that you saw a gift opportunity to try and humiliate an opponent in the media. Spare us the notion that you were informing the electorate.
I always enjoy your scouting reports on music but this posting will not be counted amongst your finest hours. It was a sad attempt to purchase fatwah insurance online.
Kinsella isn't alone in his "progressive" views on righteous religious intolerance in the Canadian blogosphere.
Well known Canadian bloggers Flea, Jay Currie, and GenX also have religious bigotry tendencies, as displayed on the comment thread at Jay Currie's site a couple of weeks ago...
[External Link]
Doesn't Kinsella regularly threaten to sue people who say things he doesn't like? Am I thinking of someone else?
Posted at 2006-02-05 12:57:31 [PermaLink]"Doesn't Kinsella regularly threaten to sue people who say things he doesn't like? Am I thinking of someone else?"
Nope, that's him. But nothing says that an asshole is wrong all the time.
Kinsella is positioning himself to be a power in the new, lefty incarnation of the Liberal party. First step: suck up to the Muslim vote, don't worry about what it might cost you eventually.
BTW, uh, does freedom of assembly include torching the place where you're assembling?
So Dawg = Warren? Heh... Never been there, won't do that.
Reciprocal respect, Dawg. That's too difficult a standard, no? Is your respect for Muslims so de minimus that you couldn't possibly hold them to the same intellectual and moral standard of tolerance as, say, progressives? (Oooh, now THERE's a lofty goal!) Their sensitive needs must be met even at the expense of our freedom of expression?
There's an inherent bigotry in your double standard, Warren. An inherent supercilious arrogance. You would treat Muslims as children to be coddled and humoured. Hey, if it makes you feel good about yourself pandering, go ahead, I say.
"But nothing says that an asshole is wrong all the time."
I certainly don't listen to anything mine says.
"Is your respect for Muslims so de minimus that you couldn't possibly hold them to the same intellectual and moral standard of tolerance as, say, progressives?"
What, In Europe? Are they forcing non-Muslim women to wear the veil, or something?
FUNNY you should ask. France. Ever heard of it? I'll dig up the links. On the one hand, the government won't let any head coverings in schools. On the other, it's worth a girl's life - any girl - to pass through certain neighborhoods on her way to school desporting her hair like a harlot. Hello? Have you paid any attention to what's happening in Norway?
That isn't the issue here though, is it? The issue is your calling for our sensorship of our expression to appease one group while YOU yourself have offered similar offensive expression to other groups...
The issue here is your bigotry towards Muslims inherent in your double standard, your coddling and pandering, your treating them as children.
The victims are brown and non Christian.
The cartoonists are supposedly white and Western-ish.
That is what the "left" looks for.
Anyone who wants to rule a country or the world on an explicitly religious basis opens himself up to legitimate attacks on that religion, because he is the one who brought it into the political arena. But Kinsella's view is that it's OK to criticize religious people who want to ban same-sex marriage or have some restrictions on abortion, and not OK to criticize religious fanatics who want to WIPE OUT THE FREE WORLD? I'm in favor of both SSM and the right to abortion, but even I can see the serious flaw in his reasoning.
Posted at 2006-02-05 15:07:39 [PermaLink]U.S. paper defends printing Mohammad cartoon
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Philadelphia Inquirer, one of the few U.S. newspapers to publish a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad from a series that sparked a wave of protests by Muslims, defended the action on Sunday by saying it was just doing its job.
"This is the kind of work that newspapers are in business to do," said Amanda Bennett, the newspaper's editor.
The Inquirer on Saturday published the most controversial image, which depicted the Prophet with a turban resembling a lit bomb, and it posted on its Web site an Internet link to the rest of the cartoons.
"But Kinsella's view is that it's OK to criticize religious people who want to ban same-sex marriage or have some restrictions on abortion, and not OK to criticize religious fanatics who want to WIPE OUT THE FREE WORLD?"
WK can speak for himself, but that's not what I read. It's perfectly OK to criticize the adherents of a religion, and it's perfectly OK to criticize religion itself. What ISN'T OK is to deliberately offend millions of people on a dare, by mocking their core beliefs.
For the moron who claims I'm "coddling" Muslims, I'm obviously doing nothing of the kind. The French example he provides should lead to the full weight of the law falling upon the miscreants. But saying so (and doing so) is not an attack upon the core beliefs of the millions of moderate Muslims around, who are no doubt as horrified by this kind of behaviour as I am.
Here's a think-experiment (thanks to a commenter on my blog and a letter in the Globe) for those who think it's clever to be gratuitously offensive. Get twelve cartoonists to draw pictures of Christ getting a BJ from a child, in the context of the pedophile priest scandal. See how far your pious demands for "free speech" take you then.
If the "core beliefs" of a religion are what lead its adherents to its destructive actions, then they are fair game. But even if a cartoon or a statement attacking religion goes beyond that, we're still talking about speech. On what basis does Kinsella or anyone who would defend his views jump from "this is offensive" or "this expresses hate" to "this must be outlawed"?
Posted at 2006-02-05 15:46:45 [PermaLink]But the cartoon did not have him, as you cite in your example; "getting a bj from a child". He had a bomb in his turban; islamists bomb innocents EVERY day; it is a cartoon that..comments on that reality.
EVEN if there was such a twisted cartoon as the one you use as an example; big deal such twisted imagery already exists on the web around the world. Whatever the mind of the human being can dream up; twisted or otherwise; its already out there. Welcome to the adult human race.
NOBODY, however, deserves to die for a cartoon and those who would perpetrate such horrendous acts deserve to be arrested or deported en masse.
Seems to me much cheaper all the way round.
Sorry, but your view is coddling, Dawg. Bigotted, gutless pandering. Well... It isn't nice to offend. It isn't generous or kindly to offend.
It is, however one may wish to view it, definitely wrong to sensor what may be offensive to someone's core beliefs. Freedom 101. It is also wrong to assume (as you obviously have) that others are incapable of dealing with the offense in a mature manner. It IS Ok to "deliberately offend millions of people on a dare, by mocking their core beliefs." It is indeed often necessary to do so.
One such core belief is misogyny. Another is slavery. I mock the fools who hold to these core beliefs, Dawg. It is only a moron who would go "nice nice" in the face of such evils and hope to be spared.
"NOBODY, however, deserves to die for a cartoon and those who would perpetrate such horrendous acts deserve to be arrested or deported en masse."
Who has died in Europe over this?
A priest was killed in his church today, in Turkey admitedly.
Anyhow, so if I want to use reaction to these cartoons as a reason why I think a Muslim shouldn't be Prime Minister, I've got Kinsella's ok to do so? Wicked!!
A grown man with kids in a weekend punk band, huh? Jeez. Well, I guess it's better than golf. Slightly.
Is this the case you're talking about? "Motive still unclear?"
[External Link]
Dawg:
Re: "Get twelve cartoonists to draw pictures of Christ getting a BJ from a child, in the context of the pedophile priest scandal. See how far your pious demands for "free speech" take you then."
I expect something like this has already been done - probably with government funding for "the arts". The difference is Christians don't issue fatwas - you know, like Salman Rushdie or Theo Van Gogh. RoPMA.
Dawg:
Motive unclear - huh?
From the same link: "Anatolian quoted Trabzon governor Huseyin Yavuzdemir as saying the priest had received threats for conducting "missionary activities" in Turkey."
Sounds like a motive to me.
"The difference is Christians don't issue fatwas"
Well, Pat Robertson comes to mind. :)
"Sounds like a motive to me."
Well, sure it is. But it doesn't seem to bear on the cartoon issue, which was what I thought Kathy was alluding to.
Robertson has never called for someone's death, 'bub'. He may be misguided, but if Robertson's bile is what you equate with fatwa, then re-examine your use of the term 'moron'.
Posted at 2006-02-05 17:06:46 [PermaLink]Dr.Dawg:
"Well, Pat Robertson comes to mind. :)"
That is a pretty sad attempt at moral equivilancy.
"Robertson has never called for someone's death."
Yeah, actually he did. A little homework for you.
Hey... You were right about something. Brilliant.
You still have your head up your ass about it being wrong to insult "millions of people on a dare, by mocking their core beliefs."
Sorry, do your homework on a chap called Adolf and his nation's precious core belief of racial superiority. Do your homework on a chap called Mohammed and his literalist followers' core beliefs of slavery, misogyny, religious superiority etc. Do your homework on their repression of modernist followers.
Sometimes it is absolutely necessary to insult millions and trash their beliefs... Especially when those beliefs call for the destruction of others.
Have you read Hitchens lately? "And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient."
It is infortunate for you that your whole "progressive" mindset is falling out of fashion. Note the decay of the fortunes of leftist media, the general shift to the right in NA politics, the libertarian shift accelerated by the blogosphere.
It is also unfortunate for you that the extremists who's precious feelings you'd not offend would have you convert or be a slave or die.
Dawg:
Pat Robertson to bolster your argument? What next - Jerry Springer?
John B: In a reductio ad absurdam I'd go for Jerry Lewis. After all the French intelligentsia did--as did I when between ten and fourteen.
Mark
Ottawa
John BDawg:
Pat Robertson to bolster your argument? What next - Jerry Springer:
John, by this I take it to understand that you strongly disagree with the outrageous statements of these gentlemen and feel it is unfair to be held accountable for the actions of your co-religionists. Exactly!This is how Muslims feel.We have repeatedly condemned the extremists in our community but all of us continue to be held responsible for the actions of a tiny minority
Preserved Killick
Take a chill pill. I am in a different time zone and was asleep when you were blathering. You said
There are scans of ancient Muslim portraits of Muhammed floating about. Were those 15th century Muslim artists in violation of Islamic law? Can you point specifically to where it says in the Qu'ran that one must not make a portrait of your prophet?
There is no specific verse in the Quran but the Prophet(peace and blessings on him) forbade us from drawing his image for fear that it would lead to idolatory. The religion of Islam is the strictest form of monotheism and we worship God and no one else. Muhammad(peace and blessings on him) was the final prophet but merely a man nonetheless.
You said
He is a dissident, just not a Muslim one." You were supposed to know that, in the eyes of Islam, Mr. Warraq will always be Muslim, regardless of his action... apparently you forgot or something. So here's your big chance to show us just how much you know.
I am not too sure that I fully understand your question but there is no verse in the Quran that prescribes any punishment for apostasy. If this is not the answer you were looking for, please rephrase your question.
You said-
Come on Aji... Condemn the outrages. Condemn the religious bigotry of certain members of your own faith.
Not only I, but all major Muslim organizations have consistently condemned violence and terrorism. Visist the webpages of CAIR, ICNA AND ISNA to name a few and confirm what I am saying.
But will you in turn condemn the deeply offensive cartoons that were published or at the very least have the decency to admit that these were cartoons that caused Muslims anguish? Will you condemn those who fire bomb abortion clinics or kill doctors who perform them?Will you condemn those who invade countries without any pretext and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?Will you display suitable outrage at the bombing of mosques and schools in the Netherlands?Or the xenophobic, anti muslim statements made by right wingers in North America and Europe.People like Ann Coulter who want to forcibly convert all Muslims to Christianity?Or the radio host who revelled in the deaths of innocents in Haj?
The ball is in your court
"condemn those who invade countries without any pretext and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians".
Seems like we have two separate issues here. I'm trying very hard here to remain calm and polite.
Which country are you alluding to, invasion wise(as if I don't know)?
Iraq comes to mind...as the agressor. Syria and Egypt have also filled the bill, in the past.
As for deaths of "innocent civilians" we have , Ethiopia, Eritria, Algeria, Lebanon, Angola, Iraq (by fellow Muslims); please note that we haven't even touched on the Islamic terrorists' slaughter of European and American civilians.
What we're really facing here is your blind loyalty to a cult. I suggested in another post that inspite of your obvious intelligence you fail to apply critical thinking to your arguments. You see US as 'racist' but won't acknowledge the most eggregious aspects of your own p.o.v. Sad.
ajsuhail:
Thanks for your comments.
Re: "but all of us continue to be held responsible for the actions of a tiny minority"
The key here is how tiny is the minority and how violent are they. As far as I know Pat Robertson is the only person (i.e Christian fundamendalist) who has ever called out for violence and he was roundly shouted down from every corner of society (I'm referring to American society here as I don't know what kind of exposure Roberston got outside of North America). FWIW (and you may not know this if you are outside of N.A.) no one on takes Robertson seriously and most regard him as a buffoon.
The key difference is that the extremist Muslim minority is all to ready to use whatever violent means is at their disposal.
Daninvan, you saidWhat we're really facing here is your blind loyalty to a cult.
Sounds like you are talking about yourself. If you cannot understand or wilfully ignore what I have emphasised in all my previous posts then you are the one guilty of being blinded by your inveterate prejudice.
--Not only I, but all major Muslim organizations have consistently condemned violence and terrorism. Visist the webpages of CAIR, ICNA AND ISNA to name a few and confirm what I am saying.--
Well, now we have to define "violence" and "terrorism."
After all, 1 man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" after all.
I trust those groups as far as I can throw them.
What cult would that be, A.
I'm Canadian, born Jewish, and atheist by conviction. Oh, of course! The non-muslim cult; guilty as charged.
I forgot to include, in that earlier post, all the mayhem in India-Pakistan, Indonesia, Bali and of course Sudan.
You're no choir-boy, Ajsuhail; you're an apologist and an enabler for those folks running amok in the aforementioned countries.
If the so-called moderate muslims want an end to
this perceived discrimination, all they need do is
excise the violent element from their midst, it's as simple as that.
Admit it, you take some perverse measure of pride in this Islamic backlash to the political caricatures.
Apparently Pope Benedict agrees with me:
[External Link]
ajsuhail:
You said this: "Exactly!This is how Muslims feel.We have repeatedly condemned the extremists in our community but all of us continue to be held responsible for the actions of a tiny minority."
But yet you advocate punishing the entire Danish economy for the actions of a very small minority (newspapers, a few government officials?! Do you even see the hypocrisy in that at all?
I don't know it just seems to me very hypocritical to complain about being branded by the minority in your religion, but at the same time advocating punishing a whole group of people based on a minority in their group (Danish).
How small is the minority? I know only a small amount of Muslims actually take part in terrorist activities... But what is the approval rating of say Osama Bin Ladden in the Muslim community?
I don't know it just seems to me... that no matter what group or where it is... when Islam rubs up against another group there is tension. Islam and Christians, Islam and Jews, Islam and Budhists, Islam and homosexuals, Islam and Hindu's, Islam and women, Islam and Baha'i, Islam and basically everything that is non-Islam.
You have to forgive us for being a little bit Islamophobe.
Aji...
You did not condemn slavery, religious bigotry or misogyny. You've condemned only "terrorism", but not jihad.
(For your information, Islam is NOT the "strictest" form of monotheism... such statements only prove that you have never researched the field.)
Those cartoons were indeed offensive, and I can point to some that were deliberately anti-Muslim and intended to offend, posted by small minded bigots. I condemn the attitude, but I must support the freedom to be wrong, even offensive.
Robertson was roundly condemned by Christians, Aji. Just as Muslims should condemn those who call fatwas against perceived enemies. Read John B. again.
DanInVan is right... You are an apologist and enabler for those who commit slavery, bigotry, misogyny and jihad.
I am not perfect, Aji. But I am free; my daughters are free; and my country has freed more people from tyranny than any in all of history.
Preserved Killick
It is aj not aji
You are entitled to your views just as I am entitled to regard them as balderash.I have repeatedly expressed my views in as clear a manner as I can but it seems to have fallen on deaf years.Sad what a brain addled by years of imbibing a deadly cocktail of hate, prejudice and bigotry has been reduced to.And if you perhaps let us know what your country is then we can decide whether your claim is poppycock or not.
"Sad what a brain addled by years of imbibing a deadly cocktail of hate, prejudice and bigotry"
I don't know about the addled part there A., but P.K. and I can certainly relate to years of being the target of prejudice, both of us being Jews.
This blog is a sea of tranquillity for us.
Speaking of places of domicile, as you were earlier, did you enlighten us as to yours, at some point (which I apparently missed...)?
Evan Kirchhoff's take on this subject is exactly right, imho:
"A bedrock liberal value is that people and ideas are different things and that we get to criticize ideas, even in impolite ways. This is non-negotiable, and to the extent that mainstream Islam is incompatible with this, it needs to back down completely. The value of the cartoons is that they have come to embody this demand.
"Once we all agree on this, then we can start discussing secondary considerations like basic politeness. But I don't see any way that the prohibition (rather selectively enforced) on depicting Mohammed is going to be sustainable."
[External Link]
India? INDIA!!
So YOU'RE the guy that keeps putting me on hold when I call customer service..........
Once Punkers tested the bounds of what was proper. Now it setting the bounds of what is proper. How odd.
Posted at 2006-02-07 09:31:29 [PermaLink]