Area Muslims React With Tempered AngerA 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.
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.'"
Friday, February 10, 2006
Reaction of D.C. Area Muslims
From the February 5, 2006 Washington Post:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post a Comment