What irks me most about this Danish cartoon controversy is the timidity of these so-called "moderate clerics" to condemn the violence. Oh yeah, they come out and criticize the media for running the ads and provoking the extremists and say they are even to blame for the resulting violence--and then they may make some soft statement about how "violence is not the answer." These "moderates" are trying to play both sides and personally may disagree with the means (violent riots, torching of embassies, etc.) but they don't disagree with the ends (a world where Islam is not only respected, but where the press has no freedom to question or criticize it--a world devoid of our modern freedoms). So in essence, the means justify the ends, even if they don't come out and say that.
And somebody explain this to me. If Muhammad is such a revered prophet by Muslims that his image cannot be painted, drawn etc. (apparently, it's wrong even for non-Muslims to portray him in any way) why do so many Muslims take his name as their own? Isn't that disrespectful or sacriligious in some way?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment