Where Do You Go
When There's No High Road
Left To Take?

click.jpg

Friday, February 10, 2006

Reaction of D.C. Area Muslims

From the February 5, 2006 Washington Post:
Area Muslims React With Tempered Anger
Some Say Depiction Overstepped Liberties


"...I've been getting a lot of e-mails about it, and I'm distributing them all,' said Omary, a Damascus native who sells real estate in Northern Virginia. 'There is a limit to freedom. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Let's have some respect.'

"A few miles away at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society mosque in Sterling, Zaki Al Barzinji, 16, was equally upset.

"'Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should say something,' the teenager said. 'If somebody showed a picture of the pope with a bomb on his head, that would cause a great public outcry. Nobody would be talking about freedom of speech.'"
A picture of the Pope with a bomb on his head would not result in the burning of embassies, placards proclaiming "Behead those who insult Christianity," and babies promoting fundamentalist religious law. You can bet on it.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link#

8 Comments:

Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Quite true. Catholics wouldn’t go on a rampage because of a picture of the Pope with a bomb on his head.

This brings up a funny story. Way back in the 1960s here in Sodom and Gomorrah … I mean New York City … the infamous pornographer and publisher of Screw magazine, Al Goldstein, published something derogatory of the Pope. The only backlash was by the Mafia run delivery trucks that bring the all the newspapers to the newsstand. They refused to deliver that issue.

But, no one bombed Goldstein’s office nor did he go into hiding. There weren’t even any anti-Jewish statements (that I can remember) even though Goldstein is nominally Jewish. The Mafia, which became as religious as Michael Corleone, probably gave Goldstein more publicity than hurt sales!

In any case, let’s remember that the Danish cartoons are true. Mohammad was a violent man. Perhaps that is why this issue hit a nerve with Muslims.

Friday, February 10, 2006 3:04:00 pm  
Blogger JMJ said...

1. I seem to be using this URL more and more all the time.

http://www.merch-bot.com/images/products/lifestyle/150wwjbkimflip1.jpg

I think Jesus is above the Pope in the heirarchy, right? Where are the threats of violence and death? Not from me.

Freedom of speech and expression.

Real simple.

2. BTW, I wonder where the cartoonists could ever have gotten the idea about putting a bomb on the prophets head. Could it have been from the "suicide bomber"?

I don't believe there were bombs back in the 7th century!

Friday, February 10, 2006 4:04:00 pm  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

That’s true. Cartoons don’t tend to be historically accurate. The one with Mo holding a sword and standing between two burka-clad gals (presumably) is more in tune with the historical period. But the bomb in the turban (and a Sikh turban at that) has the author taking liberties. But Mo was violent, not with bombs, but violent nevertheless.

Thus, it makes sense for people to debate: which kind of weapons did Mo use?

I remember reading one Muslims quip that Mo “didn’t attack mass transportation” after the London bombing. Of course, everyone laughed knowing full well that there were no subways in the desert town of Medina. But I surprised people by noting the Mo did indeed attack mass transportation: he raided the caravans. He killed and plundered. So the principle is the same even if the details have changed.

Thus, it makes sense for people to debate: why kind of vehicles did Mo attack?

These cartoons and comments can be grounds for talking about the real story of Mohammad. You’d be surprised at how many people don’t know the truth.

Friday, February 10, 2006 4:29:00 pm  
Blogger JMJ said...

Jason,
Amazing how many people are not that knowledgable in the islamic world. And yet they do not hesitate to kill or threaten to kill.

BTW, you seem to know islamic literature pretty well. Can you do me a favor and see what you can find on the actual verse(s) that says depicting Mo is forbidden. I can't get anything from any of the Muslims I ask. Preferably from respected sources.

Also, anything relative to depicting Allah as well.

Past told me about "graven images" in the Bible. Do you know anything specific in the bible about this?

Thanks so much Jason!

Friday, February 10, 2006 4:43:00 pm  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

I don’t know where specifically it says that you cannot depict Mohammad. I’ve read in history books that this is an orthodox belief though out Islamic history (even though there are many examples where Muslims have depicted him.) But I don’t know if it is in the Koran or Hadith or just inferred. One ex-Muslim, Irfan Khawaja says it isn’t in the Koran.

I tend to worry about the aspects of Islam that push the viewpoint that Islam should rule over others, by force if required. What their rules are in detail isn’t as important so much as the fact that they don’t values liberty and they are a supremacist group. I find the rest interesting but don’t keep track of the truth of the matter. Sorry, I can't help you there.

Friday, February 10, 2006 7:31:00 pm  
Blogger JMJ said...

Thanks so much Jason! Just as I suspected.

"I tend to worry about the aspects of Islam that push the viewpoint that Islam should rule over others, by force if required."

To me, your concern (and mine) is manifested through using the cartoon issue (just the current issue - there will be more in the future) as a tool to accomplish this very dominance over others. That is why the essence of the rationale must be flushed out, if there is one. Check out my comments to follow.

Friday, February 10, 2006 10:25:00 pm  
Blogger JMJ said...

Jason,
What do you think of this?

I think another option would be to post a HUGE amount of cartoons of Mohammed that have a positive spin. This removes the insult aspect and goes back to verse. And I still have not seen any verses in the quran prohibiting this. Then when the protesters continue to be violent, counterprotesters or blogs hold up signs with the positive spin Mo and ask what is the problem here? Whem they say it is prohibited by Islam, we say show it to us in the quran. When no verse can be documented, the violence looks even more foolish and then they are on the defensive.

But it should not be done in a way that indicates dhimmitude.

Just a thought. what do you think?

Friday, February 10, 2006 10:27:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anybody see South Park new episode?
A statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding ostensibly from its anus.
The local priest and bishop say it is a miracle. They get blood all over their faces. Later the new pope Benedict comes over to see, gets blood all over his face and he declares it isn't a miracle adter all because the blood isn't coming from the statue's anus but the vagina and that happens all the time. Sorry to be so graphic, but frankly it was funny, and I as a Christian am not bothered at all.

Saturday, February 11, 2006 5:32:00 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home