I hope they don't. Here's why:
The implied message of the Muslims who are up in arms about the cartoons is that Muslims should be only arbiters on how the Prophet--as well as Islam--can be discussed. Or portrayed. And their demands don't apply just to lampoons of Muhammad.
Here's an example that is much closer to home.
That picture on top is a frieze of Muhammad. It's inside the US Supreme Court building in Washington. Muhammad, as well as 17 other great lawgivers of history such as Moses, Confucius, John Marshall, and Charlemagne, are honored for their roles in building the concept of law as we know it today.
In 1997, a group of Muslims petitioned the US Supreme Court to have the frieze of Muhammad removed, as the Washington Post reported:
The 60-year-old choice of notables in the friezes has held up over time. Other than a brief controversy about Muhammad last year, the friezes have generated little public complaint. A coalition of Muslim groups asked the court to sandblast or otherwise remove the depiction of Muhammad, contending that it was a form of sacrilege because graven images are forbidden in Islam and that believers might be encouraged to pray to someone other than God, or Allah in Arabic.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist rejected the request, saying the Muhammad sculpture "was intended only to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law; it is not intended as a form of idol worship."
Mark my words: No matter how the dispute over the Danish cartoons plays out, the 1997 request will not be the last attempt by Muslims to have that frieze removed.
And non-Muslims will continue to hear from Muslims who will lecture us on the "proper" way to discuss Islam.
No other religion makes such forceful demands upon non-believers.
Yes, the struggle in Denmark is about freedom of expression.
Also posted on Pajamas Media.
Technorati tags: Muhammad Islam Muslims Danmark Tegninger SCOTUS Supreme Court Jyllands-Posten
No comments:
Post a Comment