Cartoons and the clash of “freedoms”
February 7, 2006, 1:01 am |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
By Ted Belman
Cartoons and the clash of ‘freedoms’ was written by Ehsan Ahrari, obviously a Muslim and published by Asia Times. I draw attention to it because it illustrates the attitude of Islam to the denigration of Islam in the name of free speech. And if you can believe this, the author is a CEO of Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria, Virginia-based defense consultancy.
In Austria, it is against the law to make any statements denying the occurrence of the Holocaust. But one can say anything about Islam and get away with it. Aren’t Muslims right when they take the position that there is an open season against their religion, and that the exercise of freedom of expression is used only as a “civilized” excuse for insulting them?
To this I might add, the truth hurts. If you act like a shit head you will be called a shit head.
In the West, freedom of expression is considered sacred. For a number of people, that freedom might even be regarded as absolute, thereby allowing an individual to insult even someone’s faith. Two issues must be clearly understood regarding this controversy.
First, for Muslims, nothing and no one is above Islam. No one should be allowed to be disrespectful about anything remotely associated with Islam. Having an open discussion regarding the Islamic faith is perfectly acceptable. Insulting Islam is not. That old adage about disagreeing without being disagreeable (or offensive) is fully applicable here.
The gall. Lurking behind this statement is the requirement for dhimmitude. What right does Islam have to tell non-believers what they can and cannot say and do. Simply to say that I as a non believer think I am above Islam is sacrilege. Why should I have to respect Islam or any other religion for that matter. Do I not have the right to look down on religion and say so. What makes religion sacrosanct.
Special Report: Danish Cartoons
Related: Arab/Muslim World, Islam, Political Correctness
February 7th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Point taken. But if it is true that there is a law in Austria that forbids the denial of the Holocaust - as odious as that denial would be - then that too is nonsense.
Let there be free speech even if you hate the speaker.