My only comment on the Danish Cartoons
What have we learned from the Muhammad Cartoon Fiasco? Well, to start, the aggressive campaign to convince the west that Muslims are peaceful is officially dead. Muslims have effectively set back any progress they might have made. Worst of all, they have played directly into their critics’ arguments.
Personally, I am upset and disillusioned. After so much time defending a religion for which I have great respect, I have been silenced. How can I respond to reports of young Christian children in Africa being killed because of the Danish cartoons? Or reports of angry Muslims who randomly bound a man with a tire and lit him on fire? Or burned embassies and churches? How can I apologize for the widespread murder, ruin, and destruction that Muslims have committed because of a religious insult? How can I explain the lack censure or disapproval from Muslim leaders over the atrocities being committed?
I have constantly fought off claims that Muslims are not ready for modernity, that they are intolerant, and that they are not intellectually capable respecting freedom of speech. I still believe Muslims are good people. Unfortunately, I have not explanation for the recent behavior. However, I will say that the acts that many of them have committed in the name of defending the Prophet’s honor are evil and inexcusable. Far worse than the insults of the cartoonists.
you’ve said it better than anyone else whose opinion i’ve read–including nationally syndicated writers. and you’ve got the moral authority to say it.
nicely put.
one question: the quran, i have read elsewhere, says that the reason behind the “no images of muhammad” rule is to prevent idolatrous worship of the images. that rule, restated (incorrectly, i posit) by the media as “no images of muhammad under any circumstances” seems more restrictive than it needs to be.
i say this because, would anyone–muslims included–be tempted to worship the unflattering pictures published in the jyllands-posten?
so: aren’t the pictures “offensive because of their content”, rather than “offensive because they are forbidden in the quran?” (this would be kind of like an analogy to the malum-in-se, malum-prohibitum distinction in criminal law)
or am i nitpicking?
Comment by travis — February 23, 2006 @ 2:25 am