Deja vu Allah over again
Earlier this year adherents of the "Religion of Peace" reacted to a handful of Danish cartoons portraying Islam as a violent religion with, well, violence - some of it deadly. During the past week many adherents of the "Religion of Peace" reacted to Pope Benedict making an innocuous statement linking Islam with violence with, well violence - some of it deadly.
What kind of religion produces people who are so thin skinned that they cannot abide any criticism of their faith, and react to such with threats of murder? Who react to being called violent with violence, and incitement to violence? Recall a London protest in February of this year during the "Cartoon War":
Now compare that to another protest in London, held just this past weekend (photo via Michelle Malkin):
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, it's like deja vu Allah over again. Anne Applebaum has a column in yesterday's WaPo that sums up my own feelings nicely:
What kind of religion produces people who are so thin skinned that they cannot abide any criticism of their faith, and react to such with threats of murder? Who react to being called violent with violence, and incitement to violence? Recall a London protest in February of this year during the "Cartoon War":
Now compare that to another protest in London, held just this past weekend (photo via Michelle Malkin):
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, it's like deja vu Allah over again. Anne Applebaum has a column in yesterday's WaPo that sums up my own feelings nicely:
...nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should.Time that it should indeed.
posted by Garry at
1:23 PM
8 Comments:
It is a culturaly different religion. The Jewish people in the Old Testiment were pretty similar. Remember that jihad is one of the tents of islam..
and also make sure you differentiate between the extremists and the mainstream Muslims.
I personally would not like to be associated with the polygamist offshoots of Mormonism that are so prevalent in the news today, and yet many people think of these people and Mormons as belonging to the same religion.
Although, I agree with you-- hatred is never O.K. Killing ought to be avoided wherever possible, and terrorism, the callous killing of indiscriminate targets to make a statement, is, in my opinion, pure evil.
By
Unknown, At
8:45 PM, September 20, 2006
Certainly the majority of Muslims do not approve of the terrorism being conducted in their name (although there is worrying evidence that the Jihadist viewpoint is becoming more mainstream), but it troubles me that moderate Muslims do not forcefully condemn the Islamofacists.
As a Catholic, if some militant Catholic sect was butchering people around the world by the thousands in the name of my faith, I would be rising up in absolute outrage at such a perversion of my religion, and I would be demanding that the bastards be dealt with in the harshest way possible. You just don't see enough (any?) of that from "moderate" Muslims.
By
Garry, At
11:06 AM, September 21, 2006
That's true, I suppose.
I guess it's hard when you have a sort of schizophrenic veiw of something.
Polygamy,for instance, was once a part of the LDS religion. It is no longer, and so all current polygamists are exed, but..
well, can I really speak out against it when some of my ancestors practiced it, for reasons I agree with, even?
Maybe this is similar to why moderate Muslims have a hard time speaking out about it.
thanks for the post. This topic is one of those that many people think about, and few have the courage to air thier opinions.
By
Unknown, At
12:25 PM, September 21, 2006
Polygamy doesn't bother me - if a guy is crazy enough to want 10 wives, it's no skin off my nose. But what we're talking about here is mass murder, and it's not being practiced by these people's "ancestors" - it's happening right here, right now.
But you are right that few people have the courage to speak up about it - perhaps its the fear factor; when Muslims do speak up they sometimes have to fear for their lives for doing so.
By
Garry, At
2:36 PM, September 21, 2006
You're right. Polygamy and terrorism are two different things.
But as soon as we declare one thing to be unnacceptable, as soon as we are targeting a particular religion (and not the individuals perpetrating the acts) all religions (relgious people) are in danger of the same kind of targeting, and censure.
Some people say that certain acts warrant a more violent response.
For instance, the idea of a conditional death penalty-- people are only executed if their crimes are perpetrated against a vulnerable population like children or the elderly.
But as soon as you cross that line, punishing a crime in a certain way, or possibly suppressing or punishing a particular group of people,
everyone is in danger of such punishment and suppression. It is extremely difficult to define where the line between "acceptable murder" and "unnaceptable murder" is. likewhise, "acceptable religious activism" and "unnaceptable activism."
I say let's continue punishing the individuals for their crimes, but leave the group label out of it.
Doncha think?
By
Unknown, At
3:26 PM, September 21, 2006
I certainly understand what you are trying to say, nosurf, but - at least in the US legal system - punishments for all crimes are "conditional". The cornerstone of of our justice system is criminal intent - the penalty may be harsher for someone who steals food from a store out of sheer maliciousness, as opposed to someone who steals it because of hunger. Punishment is "conditional" based upon mitigating or aggravating factors, and I think considering such factors has served us well in fitting punishments to the crime.
Someone who kills another person in an auto accident is not "in danger" of getting the death penalty - unless the prosecution can prove to a jury that there was willful, premeditated intent to commit murder. It's really not that difficult to "define where that line is".
As to "group labeling", the best way for a group to avoid being labeled collectively is for them to forcefully decry atrocities being committed on behalf of their group by a subset of the group.
By
Garry, At
5:27 PM, September 21, 2006
I agree that intent is a big part of how we execute justice. I just object when it comes down to taking a man's life.
That's such an unalterable decision, once it is done.
And if we extend this sort of "justice" to other people in other cultures, we are, essentially, forcing our own value system on them. Do we really understand the Muslims?
The answer is no, unless you are one.
Thanks for this discussion, btw. It has lead me to reexamine (as I do nearly every day) my opinions on this topic.
By
Unknown, At
2:10 PM, September 22, 2006
Thank you for the discussion as well, nosurf, always good to engage someone smart and openminded.
Do we really understand "the Muslims"? Of course you know there is no monolithic "the Muslims" any more than "the Christians" are of a single identity - there are varying interpretations of how faith should be practiced in each of the religions.
As it happens I have Muslim friends, and have visited them and their families who live in a Muslim nation (Malaysia). Everyone I encountered there I understood quite well - they are no different than you or I: they want to pursue their careers, raise their families, and live out their lives in peace and harmony with other faiths. It made no difference to them that I was an non-Muslim - they welcomed me into their homes.
But then there are the Jihadists: I understand those Muslims quite well too - they have stated very plainly what they desire (restoration of the Caliphate and imposition of Sharia law upon the planet), and also very plainly state that it is the duty of fellow believers to "kill the Americans" to advance their goals.
So it is not so very hard to understand those particular Muslims. As the 9/11 Commission Report said, with them there is "no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue". It is a nihilistic culture that loves death (again, something they plainly and repeatedly say), and those who do not agree with their worldview - even fellow Muslims - are kaffir who must be eliminated. There is no tolerance for other religions: non-believers must be converted or killed, as their interpretation of the Koran has it.
So I understand the moderate Muslims. I understand the butchering Jihadists as well. And I understand that the supreme issue of our times is which group will become the dominant force in Islam, a faith of over 1 billion people.
By
Garry, At
10:33 AM, September 25, 2006
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home