Mo' Hammad, Even Mo' Problems

Well, those wonderful Muslims are at it again.  And what is my reaction?  To step away from BookSay  in order to condemn them for it, of course.

First, let's talk hypocrisy:

Walid el-Salab, Student Union President at the American University in Cairo, and, might I add, the organizer of a peaceful rally against the Danish cartoons, has been quoted as saying, "The word Islam is derived from peace. You cannot just go and attack people.  But honestly, I feel that if I were to see the Danish Prime Minister, I might kill him myself without thinking."

Wow, great way to be a leader for peace.   And just for clarification, Mr. el-Salab, you do realize that the Prime Minister didn't draw any of the cartoons, right?  Why exactly should he be on your hit list?  He hasn't actually done anything against your religion laws.

Second, let's talk irony:

Remember when Americans started saying "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" instead of "French fries" and "French toast"?  Well, citizens of the Middle East are now saying "Rose of the Prophet Muhammad" instead of "danish" (as in the tasty food, not the name for people from Denmark).

Seriously, that's 100% true.  Now, is that really so bad?

Well, besides the minor nuisance ofo it being slightly harder to say, "Give me a medium black coffee and a cheese Rose of the Prophet Muhammad," no, not necessarily.  Except for two things.

1) You aren't allowed to exploit the image of the great prophet, but you can exploit his name by turning his legacy into a pastry?

2) What an interesting choice to call the pastry a Rose considering the editor of the Danish paper that originally ran the offensive cartoons is named Flemming Rose.

In my opinion, having the name of the man behind these comics and the name of the prophet portrayed in these comics mentioned in the same title is soooooo much more offensive than the original offense of drawing Muhammad with a bomb on his turban, which, might I add, is a pretty clever method for depicting the truth that some Muslims use their religion as an excuse for violence.   Oh, and by the way, in response to these cartoons, some Muslims are using their religion as an excuse for violence.

Third, let's start a jihad on these protestors:

Hey, all you Muslims who are acting out against these comics.  I actually read the Koran, and nowhere in it does it state that you cannot portray an image of your prophet.  In fact, in the early days of the religion, wealthy men displayed their wealth through paintings and busts of Muhammad. 

And Muslims, while I have your attention, did you read Flemming Rose's article on why he ran the comics?  If not, you can find it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html.  You should read it, because in it, he makes an absolutely fantastic point:

"We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims."

Would your argument to this be that you don't have to abide by the same rules and standards the Western world does?  Hmm, that's a really interesting point.  Well, it would be, except for another one of Rose's great points:

"Has Jyllands-Posten [the publication] insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy."

If you don't have to abide by our customs, why do we have to abide by yours?

Oh, that's right, we don't.  So how about instead of pushing your beliefs on us (you know, the same thing that you hate about what we do to you), you just not look at the comics?  How about you just not view the offensive but not religiously forbidden images of your man who had some conversations with your God, who, consequently, is also our God? 

How about you just snicker to yourselves and talk about how all us infidels, all multiple billions of us, will be condemned to Hell?  I mean, really, why can't you just be content in thinking that you are right instead of demanding that we acknowledge that we are wrong, even when are beliefs don't tell us that we are?

Will your argument to this be to ask me why I don't do the same thing I am asking of you?  Well, my argument against that would be that I haven't caused any deaths.  You can call me contradictory for doing exactly what I am preaching against if you'd like, but really, all I'm asking you to do is follow your Pillars of Faith.  Namely, to do as Allah decreeds and "refrain from gossip" as well as "foster in the quality of sacrifice that rids one of selfishness, greed, and vanity."

You may be mad at us for not following Allah's will.  But you aren't either, and we aren't the ones who have to answer to Him.

At least, not according to you, since you don't acknowledge that they are the same God, even though when Muhammad told the wise man of his village that a voice spoke to him and declared himself as being the one true God, the wise man, who had traveled to the west and learned all about Judaism and Christianity, believed this voice to be that of the westerner's God.  This, then, is what he told Muhammad.  And thus, our one true God became your one true God.  Funny how that works.

But that isn't really the issue at hand.  The important matter is whether our society was wrong for printing those comics.  To end that discussion I will again reference Mr. Rose (of the magazine, not the prophet):

"This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work The Open Society and Its Enemies, insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.

"I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten [the publication] has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult.

"I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism."