Muhammad has been depicted numerous times throughout history, both by Muslims and non-Muslims alike and very little people were hurt in the process (not counting falling bricks and mishaps with shovels and the like). So that's definitely not the same as "in any way".My problem, is that we can depict Jesus as homosexual, and Christians will start mail bombing you.
Depict Muhamemd in any way, and muslims will start bombing you. Do you see the difference there?
That does not at all detract the hysterical and insane reactions that seemed to be the case after the Jyllands-Posten cartoons or this more recent film, which is not what I'm arguing about and merits no arguing at all. There are some crazy people out there.
Really? The Church of Scientology has done some crazy things? Remember Aum Shinrikyo in Japan? The Manson family? Jonestown?I am not saying all muslims are idiots. But all idiots seem to be muslim.
The notion that (mass) hysteria and disproportionate acts of retribution are somehow a part of Islam or that it is supposed to be a religion that lends itself extraordinarily well (speaking relatively to Christianity, Judaism and other religions) to violent behaviour is rooted in the idea that there are core aspects of Islam (as a religion) that are incompatible with our working definition of "civilisation". This then supports the notion that behind every well-behaved and decent Muslim there exists some kind of core that hates democracy and women. People just have to scratch hard enough and then this core would supposedly reveal itself. Edward Saïd wrote a lot about this concept back in the seventies.
Bookmarks