Don't Be Fooled This Isn't an Issue of Islam versus Secularism

[kadafi]

:sl:

I advise anyone to read the analysis of Robert Fisk who is recognized by many for his excellency in journalism.

So let's start off with the Department of Home Truths. This is not an issue of secularism versus Islam. For Muslims, the Prophet is the man who received divine words directly from God. We see our prophets as faintly historical figures, at odds with our high-tech human rights, almost cariacatures of themselves. The fact is that Muslims live their religion. We do not. They have kept their faith through innumerable historical vicissitudes. We have lost our faith ever since Matthew Arnold wrote about the sea's "long, withdrawing roar". That's why we talk about "the West versus Islam" rather than "Christians versus Islam"--because there aren't an awful lot of Christians left in Europe. There is no way we can get round this by setting up all the other world religions and asking why we are not allowed to make fun of Mohamed.

More at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk02062006.html

[Sis786]

Finally someone is talking sense!

[TSpot]

Also in the article:

When I arrived, I found that the university had deleted the phrase "for God's sake" because "we didn't want to offend certain sensibilities". Ah-ha, so we have "sensibilities" too.

We can hardly exercise our political restraints to prevent Holocaust deniers and then start screaming about secularism when we find that Muslims object to our provocative and insulting image of the Prophet.

In any event, it's not about whether the Prophet should be pictured. The Koran does not forbid images of the Prophet even though millions of Muslims do. The problem is that these cartoons portrayed Mohamed as a bin Laden-type image of violence. They portrayed Islam as a violent religion. It is not. Or do we want to make it so?

I think he--and many on this board--miss the point. Nobody is arguing that the cartoons were inflammatory. They were. The main difference is the degree of response. There is a big difference between changing the title of a speech or constantly whining about anti-semitism and taking to the streets and torching embassays. Muslims can and should object to a provocative and insulting image of the Prophet. Rioting and looting is not the answer, however.

[kadafi]

Also in the article:

I think he--and many on this board--miss the point. Nobody is arguing that the cartoons were inflammatory. They were. The main difference is the degree of response. There is a big difference between changing the title of a speech or constantly whining about anti-semitism and taking to the streets and torching embassays. Muslims can and should object to a provocative and insulting image of the Prophet. Rioting and looting is not the answer, however.

Indeed not. While he discusses that many Muslims were not advocating the violent-type response perpetrated by other Muslims, he discusses and provides a reason why it caused a violent reaction.

What I have noticed is that the peaceful protests that occured in many Muslim and/or Western countries are not mentioned, rather you seem to cast the light on the 'violent' protrests while neglecting the peaceful protests.

To name a few:

EGYPT: THOUSANDS DEMONSTRATE IN CAIRO, AMMAN IN PEACEFUL PROTESTS OVER CARICATURES

Cartoons prompt protests in Niger

Protests held in front of UN offices in New York