THE DAILY BLADE: What Freedom Of Religion Means To Muslims: Part III
Contrary to the worst expectations of murder and mayhem, “Fitna,” the 15-minute film by Dutch PM Geert Wilders (first item, “The Other Shoe Drops” (March 28, 2008) did not create any “strife” amongst Muslims living in Europe and the Middle East. The Wall Street Journal asked, “So what went wrong?” Here’s their take:
The things that enrage radical Muslims are not the same that Westerners believe should enrage them. Mr. Rushdie and the cartoonists were supposedly guilty of blasphemy in their depiction of Muhammad. Mr. Wilders, though, restricted himself mostly to citing verses from the Quran, showing hate preachers and Islamic terror attacks.
To Westerners and moderate Muslims the film's underlying message that Islam is inherently violent is offensive. But moderate Muslims, by definition, react to such slights with criticism, not terror. Islamic terrorists, also by definition, believe that the Quran instructs them to kill infidels. Pointing this fact out won't make them any angrier. With minor edits, the film could easily work as a jihadist propaganda video.
Meanwhile on this side of The Pond, The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding’s Rabbi Marc Schneier, 49, is producing a television commercial to promote tolerance between Muslims and Jews that will air during Ramadan in September as well as during the Jewish High Holy Days the following month, reports The New York Times. The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding is also planning to launch “a national initiative matching a synagogue with a mosque in 25 cities and towns; together, they fight anti-Semitism and what the foundation calls Islamophobia.”
The Times describes the scene at the Manhattan studio where the commercial was being shot, as half a dozen rabbis and an equal number of imams waited for their close-ups:
[I]n an exchange resembling a graduate school seminar, they talked freely about the common and not-so-common ground between those who believe in the Koran and those who follow the Torah, both of whom call themselves the children of Abraham. …
Could a woman become an imam? In some senses, yes, but not in name, came the answer. …
“Does Islam seek to convert?” asked a rabbi. “No,” an imam replied. “It seeks only to convey, to convey the truth.”
[I]f a non-Muslim encounters this truth, can he find salvation? No, came the answer, “if he knows the Koran and knowingly rejects it, then he cannot.”
Call The Stiletto meshuggenah, but these imams don’t seem too tolerant of infidels (that is to say, Christians and Jews) and their beliefs. Another article published in The Wall Street Journal back in January explains why:
The Quran is viewed by most Muslims as the unchanging word of G-d as transmitted to the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century. The text, they believe, didn't evolve or get edited. The Quran says it is “flawless” and fixed by an “imperishable tablet” in heaven. It starts with a warning: “This book is not to be doubted.” …
Questioning the Quran “is like telling a Christian that Jesus was gay,” says Abdou Filali-Ansary, a Moroccan scholar.
Modern approaches to textual analysis developed in the West are viewed in much of the Muslim world as irrelevant, at best. “Only the writings of a practicing Muslim are worthy of our attention,” a university professor in
As The Stiletto’s pal at The Renaissance Biologist blog put it in her post about this article: “Would you say that this a fair and balanced treatment of religions? Neither would I. In the minds of most Westerners, ‘questioning’ does not equal ‘blaspheming.’”
Writing in The Washington Post,
This is why G-d gave us free will. Until Rabbi Schneier’s imams can write editorials and scholarly articles arguing that the Koran does not require “mindless dogmatism” then the interfaith tolerance he seeks will always be one-sided.
Editorial Note: To read other posts in this series, click here and here.
Not Your Father's (Or Your) Sex Education
The Washington Post explains the facts of life to today’s parents who have to explain the facts of life to today’s kids:
Changes in reproductive technology, a new openness about formerly closeted subjects and the flaunting of overtly sexual imagery in news and entertainment outlets have shifted the parameters of the traditional preteen birds-and-bees talk. (Remember? Mothers talked to daughters; dads talked to sons. End of discussion.) …
What a complex new world parents have to explain today. It's not just that some kids have two mommies, others two daddies or no daddy at all. Or that national debates on abortion and gay marriage, along with news stories on in vitro fertilization and sex changes, are generating a whole new set of questions.
We've also got a transgender person - born a woman but now living as a man, albeit with female reproductive organs intact - showing off what seems to be his six-month pregnancy bump on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” Try explaining that to a 9-year-old - or a 40-year-old, for that matter.
Editorial Note: When The Stiletto was in school, sex education consisted of very detailed explanations of the mechanics of frog reproductive biology - with a film strip!. We were expected to connect the dots and apply the information to humans. We eventually did - though there may be the odd student here and there who developed a fetish to do it "froggie style."
Thanks for the link! What a hot topic this is.
Reply to this