Figure 1.-- |
|
The Chritian Church dominated intelectual thought in the West for more than a millenium. Debate within limits on relgious issues was tolerated, but no ourright criticsm of Christianity or the Church was tolerated. And the Renaissance open Europe to new ideas, mny from the pagan classical civilzations of Greeceand Rome. Penalties for those who ignored the Church's standards. A series of critics found guilty of hersey (Hus, Wycliff, and others) were burned. That might have been Luther's fate hd hae not found an aristocratic protector. what followed was The Protestant Reformation debate over Christianity, but nor religion itself. As part of the Reformatioin andCatholic Counter Reformation, criticism of other religions was ytolerated, but nt your own. This led to tge terible religious wats ofthe 17th century. Once the partisans exhausted and Europe ravaged. During the Enligtenment, Christianity and religion could be criticised for the first time leading to a livelydebte on religious issues. Nothing like this occurred in the Middle East. Thus Muslims who mostly libed in Muslim-majority were not accustomed to vigorous debate. There was debate among Islamic dects, but criticism of Mohammed and tge Koram was not tolerated. After World War II as Muslims began entering the modern world and living in Western countries, they were horrified to find that it was not only legal, but acceptable to criticise Islam as well as the Koran and Mohammed. The Muslim reaction is not surprising, but what has been surprising has been the willingness of the media and academia who have no restraint in criticising Christianity to not only avoid criticizing Islam, but question the ethics of those who do criticize Islam.
Many Muslim countries have blasfemy laws. They are used to muzzel Christians and penalties include capital punishment. Procecutiond for blasfemy have been followed in Pakistan during recent years.
One of the most cherished principles of the West's freedom of speech. Thus it is somewhat surprising that the liberal-dominated main-stream media has been so reluctant to report on Muslim-sponsored violence and attacks on homosexuals and women and to criticize those who do. When Bill O'Riley stated the obvious, "Muslims attacked us on 9-11," on the ABC program 'The View', two outraged liberal women accused him of intolerance and walked off the program (2010). Later, one of the two women, Whoopie Goldberg, later admitted she had no idea what a Medrassa was or that many more Jews are attacked in America than Muslims. After every incidence of Islamic terrorism (Christmas Underwear bomber, Times Square Bombing, Major Hassan, ect.), the liberal America media lectures America on the need not to blame Islam or Muslims and that these are rare incidents of misguided individuals. Never do they mention how tolerant America is and that there is no massive outbreak of anti-Muslim violence. (In sharp contrast to the reaction in Muslim countries to cartoonists, film makers, and even a British teacher with a teddybear.) The liberal media consistently shows a condescending attitude toward Americans and feels the need to lecture. There two basic point is that 1) there is no group guilt and 2) Muslim critics are blowing up incidents out of propotion and reporing with a lack of civility.. Now we have no rel objection to objectging to group guilt, although we object to attempts to supress reporting on Muslim violence. What is interesting is the willingness of the very same media pundits to eagerly adopt the very same tactics they say they deplore. Jared Loughner murdered six innocents and injured about a dozen others including Congresswoman Gabrella Giffords (January 2011). Within hours, the media who lectures America about not jumping to jusdgement on Muslims reflectively pounced on conservatives, especially Christian conservatibes. Paul Krugman, a New York Times editorial writers pounced on conservatives for fomenting a climate of hate in politcal discourse. Krugman and countless newspaper editorialists and broadcast media figures charged that figures like Sara Palin, Russ Limbough, Michell Backman, Bill O'Riley, and Fox News in general were responsible. All this occured within hours before anything about Lochner was known. The group resoonsibility they preached as well as civility was cast aside as soon as they sensed an opportunity to criticise cinservatives and the Tea Party. It soon became apparent, however, that Lochnerhad no coherent political views and was mentally deranged. And while the left-wung media lectures us on the civility they easily discard, when do you here these prople connecting Muslim hate speech with acts of terrorism. As one observer writes after the Moscow airport attack (January 2011), "Now that we have yet another outrage from Islamic terrorists who have just bombed and killed dozens of innocents at the Moscow international airport, there will be no such condemnation by the left wing media of the Muslim imams who daily instill hatred for us infidels throughout the Muslim and the West, so that we should die because we are unbelievers and that Jihad should spread Islam for Allah as per the Koran, the Sunna and the Sharia. Based on Walid Shoebat’s testimony and countless other former Muslims and righteous liberal Muslims, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that this spewing of hatred from the mosque pulpits is causing the violence, murder, intimidation and persecution of Westerners, Israel, Christians and all non believers in Islam."
Muslim nations when the United Nations Charter was approved at the end of World War II (1945) were concerned about several provisions relarted to human rights and women's equality. Thry procedded to sign the charter so as not to be exluded from the new organization. For the mosrt part Arab and other Muslim narions simplu ignored the provisions they did not like. For several years now, Muslim nations at the United Nations have backed a religious "anti-defamation" plan that would bar criticism of the prohfetb Mohammad and his teachingy any criticsm of Islam. The proposal is backed by the Organization of Islamic Conference states.
Some Muslim readers believe that HBC is overly critical of Islam. A Pakistani reader writes, "Of what i have understood of all your comments is this: the western civilization is better than islamic civilization in all its aspects, be it the outlook on life, liberty of action, freedom of expression, deliverance of human rights, adherance to moral and ethical code, being tolerant, in promoting equality of genders etc. Of what I have learnt over the 24 years of my life is to stop beating around the bush and getting to the point. Sometimes I try to summarize and categorize my own thoughts that it feels like squeezing a dead lemon, buts thats me. I feel, we are only touching upon irrelevant matters such as whether democracy is acceptable in Islam or not, and likewise, which has no tangible value in the discussion of Islam really. The implementation of Democracy itself differs chalk and cheese between western countries like America and Switzerland. So let us not waste our time on these petty issues." [Davies]
Davies, Keith. Executive Director Walid Shoebat Foundation. "Islamic Rhetoric has nothing to do with Terror if you are a left-winger," eMail message, January 24, 2011.
Keith Davies
Navigate the Historic Boys' Clothing Web Site:
[Return to the Main Islam page]
[Return to the Middle Eastern chronologies]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Art chronologies]
[Biographies]
[Chronologies]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]