Another NPR discussion from the last week that has a very passionate participant from the "Moderate Muslim" side is this:
And in this case, I am not talking about Irshad Manji; she is, at best, part progressive and part radical neo-con; you can read what I recommend as background on her at: http://ifaqeer.blogspot.com/2005/05/irshad-manji-progressive-muslim.html
But listen to Dr. Adil Najam; his segment starts about 12 minutes in. Sit back and really listen to him.
Technorati tags applicable to this post: Adil Najam - Cartoon Riots - Moderate Muslim - Moderate Islam
Interesting. I was worried about Adil's comment when he made the distinction between 'free speech' and 'hate speech'. Muqtedar Khan made that same argument to me in the context that hate speech shouldn't be allowed. This line of reasoning bothers me. There is hate speech but it bothers me thinking of it as a legal category. If it was ever criminalized I would be quite angry and republish it just for free speech. I think the Imams did a really bad thing when they tried to challenge it on legal grounds. I wouldn't mind them asking them to be condemned, but trying to make it a legal issue really worried me and made me far more sympathetic to the issue. For instance, the cartoon belongs in the Wikipedia article now that it is a big deal--but it doesn't belong in a major national newspaper in the first place. People should condemn it and boycott but not challenge it legally.
As for Manji's points... it always bothers me trying to get Muslims out to condemn things that Muslims do. As a White American I'm more or less assumed to be Christian and I don't take the effort to condemn what Christians do in other countries. It's a little crazy to think people are obligated to come out and condemn things... I think it would help... but, people shouldn't have to do it.
Post a Comment