Saturday, February 11, 2006
Muzammil Ahmed, Board Member of the Michigan Chapter of CAIR recently crafted a response to the appearance of Danish cartoons and ensuing violence. While the headline claims that the letter "aims for healing", reading between the lines reveals a different message:
"The uproar over the Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad is a victory for extremist elements in both Western and Islamic societies. Rather than try to foster bridges of understanding and stimulate communication, the various publishers of the offensive cartoons made a calculated move to incite Muslims across the world."
This is a clearly false and misleading statement. According to Wikipedia, "the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists to draw them and published the cartoons in response to the difficulty that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent attacks by extremist Muslims." Were the Danish cartoons the product of "extremists" and how did their publication benefit extremist elements in Western societies? The response to the publication of the cartoons was clear - violent protests, torching of embassies throughout the Arab world, and threats of even greater violence by Muslims.
"mainstream Muslim organizations in North America condemn these violent protests, particularly when there are more important issues facing the Muslim world."
So, the Muslim organizations condemn the violence not because of the inherent moral question, but because there are "more important issues" to deal with?
"No mainstream publisher would intentionally produce material that is considered racist, anti-Semitic or offensive to specific ethnicities. The publication of such material is not an issue of free speech, but an issue of respect and responsibility. The choice to be offensive to an entire community will certainly invite people to boycott and protest. Inevitably, a minority of the protesters also becomes irresponsible, and the situation can spiral out of control."
Here, Mr. Ahmed's argument self-destructs. Throughout the Muslim world, the "mainstream media" including official government sanctioned outlets routinely print, broadcast, and distribute horribly anti-Semitic propaganda. How does he explain this?
"The Danish newspaper publisher has apologized and the editor has been fired. This is a time for Muslims to gracefully accept such gestures and use them as an opportunity to create further understanding. There are many divisions between the large immigrant Muslim populations in the West and their host countries. Both sides must make a conscious effort to avoid inflammatory rhetoric and strive toward peaceful coexistence."
Well, the editor has taken an indefinite leave, probably in part to protect himself against the death threats. Ahmed correctly identifies that "divisions" exist between Muslim immigrants and Western countries. Unfortunately, many of these "divisions" result from the fundamental differences between Islamic and Western law - namely protection of women and minorities, equality, free speech, and social justice in the later.
Perhaps the most cogent analysis to date has been that of Charles Krauthammer. In his February 9th op-ed, Mr. Krauthammer observed:
"What passes for moderation in the Islamic community -- "I share your rage but don't torch that embassy" -- is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means. It is fraudulent because, while pretending to uphold the principle of religious sensitivity, it is interested only in this instance of religious insensitivity."
"A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who don't are not moderates but hypocrites, opportunists and agents for the rioters, merely using different means to advance the same goal: to impose upon the West, with its traditions of freedom of speech, a set of taboos that is exclusive to the Islamic faith. These are not defenders of religion but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West."
Once again, proving the "Fifth Column" at work.
The last thing that Westerners are seeking is a "clash of civilizations". In fact, it is the Imams and Jihadists who are promoting such a showdown; attacking innocents in murderous rampages and calling for an all out war to anhilate Jews, destroy the West, and establish a caliphate.
Imagine if mainstream Rabbis or Priests routinely called for the wanton slaughter of Muslims on national T.V. Farfetched of course, except this kind of hatred directed at Jews and Christians is broadcasted every day throught the Arab world.
With respect to your issues in Austria, I neither live there nor support their laws. The U.S. has no such laws.
Insofar as your analogy of Muslims and African Americans, I'm lost on this one. Muslims aren't slaves of the U.S. - in fact slavery (among other barbaric practices such as "honor killings", beheadings, etc.)is still practiced in many Muslim societies.
Your claims are plainly askew.