Bernard Lewis Quotes

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim fatal riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim fatal riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews.

The Vatican Congregation of the Index had banned Greene’s Book, The Power and the Glory. See {598544}.

Amr ibn Al-'Aas was one of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad. In 2005 an Egyptian writer, Usama Anwar Ukasha, criticized the companion’s role for causing dissention and divisiveness in Islamic history. Some called for his legal punishment for slandering a holy figure and a law case was brought to force him to divorce his wife—so that she would not be “contaminated” by his heretical thoughts. Some Egyptians argued that anyone should have the right to analyze and criticize the role of any historical figure—except for The Prophet (see {585045})—but Dr. Shahin explained that under Islamic Law (Sharia) such criticism may not be permitted and the state should punish the offender.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. In the United States a debate raged over whether or not news organizations should show the cartoons. Some did; most did not.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. Westerners came to the support of Denmark. The United States which usually supports freedom of the press made this veiled criticism of the Danish Newspaper.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. That was particularly true of Egypt which commonly insulted Christianity and Judaism and the government always claimed that they could not interfere with private publications and broadcasts because Egypt had freedom of speech and the press.

Rushdie was commenting on the Danish Cartoons that had been published the year before depicting the Islamic Prophet Muhammad to the great distress of some fundamentalist Muslims some of whom orchestrated riots in many countries involving much property destruction and some loss of life. See {590918} as an example of the concern.

There is irony in this act and statement. The film was censored because it was a defamation to Jesus Christ, who the Muslims recognize as a holy Prophet. See {620971} . However, ultra-fundamentalist Muslim clerics preach hate and desecration of Christianity, Judiasm, and Hinduism commonly. None are ever prosecuted in Pakistan. Books and pamphlets excoriating Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Bhai prophets are common place in Pakistan. Ironically, this banned film was called for by the Catholic Church.

In September of 2005 a Rose’s newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. Apologies were demanded from Rose.

Part of the right to freedom of speech is the right to criticize, disparage or insult. However, there are some people in the world who do not believe in freedom of speech or expression and not only believe that certain types of expression are blasphemous and sinful, but some believe that it is their religious duty to kill the blasphemer. In this case a film was made that was not only intellectually an attack on Islam but it was done in such a manner that most orthodox Muslims were insulted and offended that their Prophet and religion were both insulted in a blasphemous manner. It was a film that was very much in poor taste, insensitive and gross. In the Islamic world, some extremists use incidents that they call blasphemy to whip up large crowds who riot, destroy and in many cases kill innocent people who have nothing to do with the alleged blasphemy except that their employer might be a company in the same nation as the blasphemer. These fanatics also hold governments responsible for blasphemy if they do not violate their own laws and constitutions and interfere with their citizens right to freedom of speech and expression. For people like Bollinger, this raises a terribly difficult situation and as he points out in this quotations free speech can have serous repercussions almost anywhere in the world. Others observe that every time we even discuss the potential repercussions, the enemies of freedom of expression win, and have a chilling effect on the rest of the world. They urge ignoring the consequences and avoid rewarding the enemies of freedom by giving them an influence on our freedoms and practices.