THE DAILY BLADE: What Freedom Of Speech Means To Muslims
The Stiletto has written several articles examining what freedom of religion means to Muslims. In a nutshell: You have the freedom to convert to Islam, or to live under sharia law even though you are not Muslim and are living in a Western country.
The Stiletto now turns her attention on how (really, whether) Muslims comprehend the concept of free speech:
† Exhibit A: The riots in Denmark over the newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishing a handful of cartoons that depicted Mohammed.
† Exhibit B: The death threats against Pope Benedict XVI in Turkey and throughout the Muslim world – and the cold-blooded murder of a nun, as well as firebombings of several churches – over a reference made in a lengthy lecture on a variety of topics.
† Exhibit C: The mere threat of violence against opera-goers, the cast and the crew prompted the Deutsche Oper in Berlin to cancel performances of Mozart's Idomeneo because of a scene in which the hero holds the decapitated heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha and the prophet Mohammed in a sack and cries out, "The Gods are dead!"
† Exhibit D: Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which makes it a crime to "denigrate Turkishness," chiefly by writing about the genocidal murder of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks as being settled history, whether in newspaper articles or in works of fiction. Amnesty International blames Armenian journalist Hrant Dink’s murder in Istanbul last month on his having been convicted under Article 301 - "a pattern of judicial harassment against him for peacefully expressing his dissenting opinion." Nationalists in Turkey hyped Dink’s conviction under Article 301, inciting murderous retaliation: In his confession, Dink’s assassin, Ogun Samast said, "I read on the Internet that he (Dink) said 'I am from Turkey but Turkish blood is dirty' and I decided to kill him ... I do not regret this."
† Exhibit E: Abdel Kareem Nabil, a 22-year old Egyptian blogger was convicted and sentenced to a three-year prison term for insulting Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and inciting sectarian strife – then tacked on another year for insulting Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak. A secularist fighting for democratic reforms - the former student of Egypt's Al-Azhar University often referred to the Sunni religious institution as "the university of terrorism" and accusing it of encouraging extremism, reports The Associated Press – Nabil was among a group of bloggers arrested and detained for several weeks last year, but the others had all been freed.
Denmark and Germany are European countries, but fear of provoking the murderous outrage of minority Muslim populations in both countries has had a chilling effect on freedom of the press and freedom of artistic expression. In the supposedly "secular democracy" of Turkey – its population is 99.8 percent Sunni Muslim - the life of the spiritual leader of a major Christian denomination was threatened and a journalist was murdered for exercising their free speech rights. Egypt, a republic that is 90 percent Sunni Muslim, imprisons critics of Islam and of its "elected" president.
So whether Muslims are in the majority or minority, living in a Western nation or in the Middle East, governed under laws that are secular or Islamic, "moderate" or fundamentalist they are all too often hostile to free speech rights: "Shut up, or we will shut you up – permanently."
OH Dems Put Partisanship Above Prudence
After the Bush administration announced the U.S. would accept 7,000 Iraqi war refugees (second item, "The Daily Blade," February 21, 2007), OH Governor Ted Strickland told The Associated Press: "I am sympathetic to the plight of the innocent Iraqi people who have fled that country. However, I would not want to ask Ohioans to accept a greater burden than they already have borne for the Bush administration's failed policies."
Strickland – who had voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing military force to oust Saddam Hussein when he was a member of the House of Representatives - was swiftly and roundly lambasted for the "heartlessness" of his Valentine’s Day remarks by newspapers in his state, as well as those with a national circulation. This editorial from The Plain Dealer (Cleveland) was typical:
Gov. Ted Strickland manages to look both petty and ill-informed when he says Ohio doesn't want an influx of Iraqi refugees.
Strickland, a Democrat, may not want to give President Bush any political advantages on a war he opposed while in Congress.
But resettling vulnerable war refugees should not be a partisan issue. The governor is not just being narrow-minded, but also apparently acting in ignorance of his own party's position. …
What's more, Strickland's fellow Democrats are the ones leading the charge in Washington to do more to help needy refugees and the most exposed, endangered Iraqis - those whose lives are in jeopardy in Iraq, because of work for the U.S. military or other Americans as translators, drivers, secretaries and aides.
Naturally, Strickland did what any Dem does when accused of the Republican crime of "heartlessness" – he quickly retracted his comments, explaining that he meant to express frustration with Bush instead of people displaced by the war.
So far, so predictable. But then OH Republicans decided to use Strickland’s supposed heartlessness for political gain by ripping open their shirts to reveal profusely bleeding hearts. State Senators Kevin Coughlin and Robert Spada, Senate President Bill Harris and five other Republicans co-sponsored a resolution stating:
"Whereas, Gov. Ted Strickland has indicated his desire that no Iraqi refugees be resettled in Ohio," the senators say in a portion of the resolution. "That sentiment does not accurately reflect the compassion or generosity of the people of the State of Ohio."
Coughlin tells The Associated Press that the resolution – which was sent to the Senate reference committee - intended to be a positive statement in favor of President Bush's efforts to assist Iraqi families in starting a new life, not to punish the governor.
The Stiletto is all for compassion – but not at the expense of common sense. Countries that have already taken in Iraqi refugees have been rocked by sectarian strife stemming from the seemingly bottomless well of animosity between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Our civilian and military leaders did not fully understand this violent religious rift, playing out all over the Middle East, when they committed our troops to war in Iraq – and there is continuing evidence that they have still not learned the lessons of Iraq as other pressing foreign policy issues loom. From The Wall Street Journal:
Washington views Iran as a rogue nation that arms militias in Iraq, wants to build a nuclear bomb and seeks Israel's destruction. From Arab kingdoms on the Persian Gulf to Lebanon on the Mediterranean, however, Iran is also viewed through another prism, as a non-Arab, and, for some, heretical power intent on expanding the clout of itself and fellow Shiites at the expense of the region's Sunni establishment. …
Bahrain is ruled by a Sunni royal family but roughly 70% of the populace is Shiite. The nation was shaken by a series of clashes this month between Shiite protesters and security forces dominated by Sunnis.
Saudi Arabia frets about the Shiite minority who inhabit its oil-producing eastern region next to Bahrain. Kuwait, too, has a sizable Shiite minority. Lebanon's Sunni-dominated government is under threat from Hezbollah, a Shiite militia.
Even countries with hardly any Shiites, such as Egypt and Jordan, have domestic concerns. By denouncing Iran (and by association Shiites), leaders hope to outflank their most virulent critics -- militant Sunni Islamists, who often fume against Shiites as heretics. …
When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it believed that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, would seed tolerant democracy there and elsewhere. The war instead uncorked pent-up sectarian tensions in Iraq, pitting the country's once-dominant Sunni minority against its long-oppressed Shiite majority. The Iraqi chaos also has emboldened neighboring Iran to flex its muscles in Iraq and beyond, further stirring passions rooted in centuries of theological, political and ethnic rivalry.
Shouldn’t someone stop, take a deep breath, and consider whether sectarian strife will follow the Iraqi refugees here to America – as elsewhere on the planet? Iraqis are unable to live peaceably side by side in the fledgling democracy the US purchased for them with the blood of our best and bravest young men and women. What evidence – or hope - is there that Iraqis can live peaceably in our pluralistic culture and under our secular laws?
Geitenneukers. It's what Theo van Gogh used to call Moslems before he was gunned down by Mohammed Bouyeri (Arabic: محمد بويري) in 2004. If you're not up on your Dutch, you can follow the link to read what it means. Add that to your list of free speech.
Reply to this
Seems Muslims can't see any issues with free speech when Christians and/or Jews are the subject of the criticisms.
Reply to this
It just goes to show that Muslims are intolerant of ANYTHING that they don't believe in. Keep in mind that in the Muslim religion a person can lie, cheat, hinder, hide the truth, deny the truth and kill, (murder), in order to achieve the end result, which is total Muslim control of the world under Sharia law. The real answer to the problem, if they don't want to live peaceably with the other peoples of the world, is to NUKE them back to the beginning of time. I'm not for genocide of ANY country or religion, but this is exactly what the radical Muslims are attempting to do to Westerners, regardless of color. Keep in mind that Muslims were some of the first people on earth to have slaves and indentured peoples. If you don't convert to the Muslim religion then that is what you become. Even if you DO convert you are still not considered a Muslim, unless they want you to do some of their dirty work, and you are nothing but an identured servant anyway. There is no winning with these radicals, and to my knowledge I have never read anything that "moderate" Muslims have done to kick the radicals out of their religion. I note that just within the last couple of months Al-Maliki and other Iraqi politicians were calling for the arming of all the people in Iraq to protect themselves from the radical MUSLIM TERRORISTS. Now, doesn't that sound like they should have a Second Amendment to their Constitution so they can be armed and protect themselves and their country? They also, obviously, need a First Amendment so they can speak out without fear of reprisals. Remember, in this country, the good Old U. S. of A., the first ten amendments to our Constitution do not GIVE us any rights, they GUARANTEE us those rights we already have. Tell that to the leftist liberals who want total control of the American people. Sounds an awful lot like they're on the side of the Muslims, doesn't it?
Reply to this