Norwegian Muslims on Wednesday, January 11, blasted an obscure magazine for echoing a Danish daily and publishing a set of caricatures offending Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).Maybe if Muslims didn't use anything deemed 'offensive' as an excuse for extremist actions they could understand what freedom of expression meant. I mean I find smelly Frenchmen offensive but that doesn't mean I can kill them by the busload.
"The Supreme Islamic Council (SIC) condemns in the strongest possible terms the publishing of such offensive cartoons by Magazinet," SIC Head Mohammad Hamdan told IslamOnline.net over the phone from Oslo.
The Christian magazine on Tuesday, January 10, published the same cartoons that caused uproar in the Muslim world after first emerged in Denmark's mass circulation Jyllands-Posten last September.
It printed the blasphemous cartoons in the name of "freedom of expression."
"What on earth does freedom of expression mean?" A furious Hamadan wondered.
"Editors should not take free speech as an excuse to insult a certain religion; otherwise they risk an extremist response from the offended, which carries grave consequences."
Danish Muslims are planning to take their legal battle against the Jyllands-Posten daily to the country's federal attorney general and the EU human rights commission after loosing a local case. Maybe the UN can educate them on what a repressive religion means? No, what was I thinking.
Al-Azhar, the highest seat of religious learning in the Sunni world, has vowed to raise the issue of the provocative caricatures with the UN and international human rights organizations.
This matter has become a test case for the continued viability of freedom of speech in Western countries. And now The Economist has written about the story in a way that reveals the biases and false assumptions so prevalent in the public discourse today.
As Islamic terrorism and jihad violence spread all over the globe, The Economist has doggedly maintained its tone of blame-the-West-first attitude. Instead of seeing the cartoon controversy as another threat to freedom of speech in the West, it places the blame on Danish racism and xenophobia. The spin starts in the lead sentence: “For much of last year, various squabbles have simmered over several prominent Danes' rude comments about Islam.”
Don't have the freedom to be rude, tell that to a New-Yorker. I hope they enjoy the ride down to the pits of dhimmitude. You free so long as no-one, nowhere, find what you say the least bit offensive. If I say the government is offensive does that mean they'll disband their government? I Wish!