Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Should Morrocans be congratulated for not burning down the Danish embassy, as the writer of this article seems to imply? Look, if the Muslim "street" is "feeling pain" for being backwards, then maybe it should stop being backwards. If the concept of free speech (however silly the caricatures are) is too difficult for screaming rock-throwing mobs to understand, if large numbers insist on responding like brute animals, then they ought not be expected to be treated as anything but. It is only a civilized largesse that keeps this from happening. Which, of course, is part of being civilized. Too difficult for the Muslim "street" to comprehend? Really?
I agree with the prior letter writer's point. The problem in the west's perception of Arabs is that we see them all as animals sitting on top of oil that we need. Consequently, we bend over backwards to give them wide berth whenever they act atrociously because our expectations are already so low.
For instance, we have made no demands and we have made no protest when they have depicted Jews, Hindus, Christians or Buddhists in the most deplorable ways (see http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3360 for a good article with great links to other sources).
We have funneled money to them (Egypt gets the second-highest amount of US aid; Saudi Arabia is defended by US troops; Jordan receives millions in aid from the US; and the so-called Palestinian Authority gets hundreds of millions a year), but have not demanded anything in return for our largesse. Anti-American attitudes run rampant through text books and speeches in government moderated and funded forums in these same countries. They've killed Americans. They've caught and then released the perpetrators and we've done nothing about it.
They have the temerity to demand changes in our laws (see http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2989) to accommodate them but do not do the reverse in their own countries (Jews are not allowed in Saudi Arabia; Jews were tortured, persecuted, and expelled from Arab lands up to the 1950s; Christians are being forced out of Bethlehem).
The west seems to believe that by turning the other cheek and apologizing for exercising OUR RIGHTS in the face of Islamic anger we'll be able to move beyond the anger. The reality is that there is nothing you can say to people who still don't understand what went wrong when their civilization was eclipsed by ours and who deeply resent it.
I say to hell with them until our rights are respected equally.
JP
Unfortunately the pontificators have little in the way of historical example to lead us in our own judgement.
Christianity had to develop a theory to justify war, after Constantine's appropriation of it, that lasted centuries. Basically the Gospels are an anti-war, love your neighbor, type of document. Its only the Fundamentalists, opposing a scientific examination of their religion, who refer to the Hebrew Scriptures and their similarly Islamic calls to violence. And we see this sentiment borne out today among Israelis and the broader Middle East.
On the contrary, Islam, the religion of peace, has had to formulate its own theory of peace over centuries precisely because its formative texts are flatly hate-mongering to what it percieves as unbelievers.
While Christianity had to formulate a theory of war over centuries, contradicting its essential doctrines all along, Islam's re-imagining itself as a religion of peace is just as untenable. Perhaps moreso that Christianity.
Christianity and Judaism studiously attempted a scientific and analytical examination of their own religions, starting in the early 19th century. (Although one can trace the movement back before Spinoza.) Therefore one finds a tolerant form of Judaism/Christianity in Europe and in civilized parts of the US. However, Muslims refuse to engage in interfaith dialogue using Historical Criticism.
There are many reasons for this. Namely that the textual backgrounds on Islam are so weak, i.e. Mohammed's understanding of Judaism and Christianity were based on apocryphal texts and blatant misunderstandings of both Judaism and Christianity, and yet he started a religion claiming to supercede both of them! And that he was illiterate. Which is an Islamic argument for the truth of his claims. That no illiterate could possibly have the insight into religious texts that he had.
Reasonable enough.
But his referencing of religious texts is from the point of, well, an illiterate. His referencing of Christian texts are from apocryphal sources. He has no idea what or who Jesus is, namely the titles "Christ", "Messiah" and others. And Mohammed uses these, ignorantly. And then there's the misuse/abuse of the Jewish scriptures as a false lineage, though I'm sure one of our Jewish readers can correct us on this one.
Regardless, this shows that this religion was, at the start, a mad scramble to concoct a religion out of patchwork that appropriated from others. No harm there. What is of importance is the rapidity and violence with which they attacked their heirs. Mohammed first attacked the Jews, forcing them from Medinah and then the Christians. Ever since there has been a holy war.
The only objections, throughout the following Christian centuries, has been that Islam, founded by a polygamist (which nobody should give a damn about) held that FORCED CONVERSION was a divinely instituted right of the followers of his true religion. That was Aquinas' big beef. Forced conversion.
Now in the west... Do we really want to have to deal with that in our public sphere?
The mentioning of the "offensive" joke in this article by the academic as an example of how the Cartoon publishing offends Muslims reminded me of some of the Jesus Jokes we used to tell each other at (catholic) school.
E.g. Jesus walks into a Pub, throws 3 nails onto the bar and asks the landlord "Can you put me up for the night ?"
Why wasn't Jesus born in Australia ?
God couldn't find a virgin and 3 wise men.
Anyone remember anymore ?
Dear Editor,
"You can insult me, my mother, my father, but not the Prophet," my friend Abdelghanni tells me, going on to explain the heart of the matter... so we don't draw him because we don't need to and because we don't want" -- he searches for the word -- to pollute our image."
But you see, Abdelghanni is wrong; I can insult the prophet! I’m not going to for the simple reason that I don’t feel any real animosity toward Mohammad and therefore don’t see the point in it. But if I want to draw a picture of Mohammad –let’s say something puerile and silly like with a bomb in his turban—then I can! And I expect to be able to do it without some wing nut getting all medieval on my ass.
I’m perfectly aware that this depiction of Mohammad does not represent Islam well or the majority of its adherents, but that isn’t the point at all. Religious sentiments should be tolerated only insofar as they guarantee and actively support the liberties that all people have a right to—in this case the freedom of expression. Screw cultural relativism! Just because a minority of people expects me to be sensitive to their religious or cultural superstitions does not mean that I have to be or should be. This is called an enlightened secular viewpoint and it’s something that I don’t feel inclined to apologize for.
I laud the stance by many Moroccans to abjure the violence but I reserve and wholeheartedly defend my right to insult or make fun of anything that I disagree with (read: “Western disrespect”), especially when it is done in the one of arts and letters greatest genres; satire. After all that’s what satire is all about; mocking violence, stupidity, demagoguery, hypocrisy, human folly, pretensions and superstition. All of which, I might add, are in abundance in this so-called controversy.
Chad Bagley
Shanghai, China
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
