The Mohammed Cartoon Outrage Understood

In order to understand Islam one should hear it explained from the faithful. In an article from Arab News entitled The Prophet as a Man — 108: War Preparedness the philosophy of Islamic war is analyzed by examining how Mohammed himself treated the subject.

We'll begin with the opening paragraph, struck in a reasonably conciliatory tone:

Despite what the enemies of Islam say, particularly nowadays, and what impression some fringe groups of Muslim hard-liners advocate, Islam is a religion of peace, which prefers to live with all communities in an atmosphere of mutual respect and true understanding.

Uh, could we have just one example of that, please?

However, Islam does not shrink from fighting a war imposed on it by its enemies.

I'll say.

This could be by launching a straightforward attack on Muslim population or Muslim land, such as Israel did when it attacked Gaza and Lebanon in recent months,...

Excuse me while I clean my coffee spew off my computer monitor. As I remember, the attacks into Gaza and Lebanon were in response to the initiated terrorists' kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers from Israeli territory.

....or by imposing some sort of siege, which prevents Muslims from advocating their faith through free speech. In fact Islam does not require from anyone more than the basic freedom of speech and conviction, which are as essential to human existence as food and drink. Without such freedom, man’s life will not be different from that of animals.

What about the automatic death penalty for those who have the conviction to change their religion from Islam to something else?

It seems that the foundation laid for the rest of the argument is wrought with contradictions, so the reasoning that follows is fatally flawed. Regardless, the article goes on to describe a battle where Mohammed was injured but was protected by certain individuals at the risk of their own lives. Later he entered Mecca (Makkah) and proceeded to exact a bit of revenge on a reverted Muslim, Ibn Khatal.

He [Ibn Khatal] also had two slave girls who used to sing for him and for his companions songs full of abuse of the Prophet. The Prophet’s instructions specified that the two slave girls should also be killed. The man was killed as he was actually holding on to the coverings of the Kaaba. Abu Barzah Al-Aslami and Saeed ibn Hurayth Al-Makhzumi killed him along with one of his slave girls. The other managed to flee until someone sought a special pardon for her from the Prophet, which he granted.

Just like the Mohammed cartoons, the two slave girls, expressing their right to free speech no doubt, dishonored Mohammed. The result: death for girls. Had the one slave not escaped, she would have been summarily executed also.

While the opening paragraph above claimed "Islam is a religion of peace, which prefers to live with all communities in an atmosphere of mutual respect and true understanding" and "Islam does not require from anyone more than the basic freedom of speech and conviction", these Islamic "truths" are self-evident in the respect that only ISLAM is to be "respected" and "understood", and "free speech and conviction" belong to the MUSLIM only. Any breach of these ideals opens the door to Islamic war waged upon the guilty community.

So the Mohammed cartoon controversy actually has historical precedent with Mohammed himself. Since Mohammed was perceived to be dishonored, what happens after that is just a foregone conclusion.




(via lgf )