Editorial: Faith manipulated, Middle East regimes are playing the religion card

THE virulence of Muslim protests over cartoons of the prophet Mohammed appears to have confirmed popular perceptions of Islam and its adherents. But while it is easy to assume all Middle East Muslims are intolerant of any opinions other than their own, and as such are incapable of co-existing with the West, or embracing democracy, it is also wrong. Much of what we saw over the last week was the work of bigots and bullies using religion as a cloak for their own prejudices, and sometimes political ambitions. This is not to deny the genuine anger among many Muslims over the publication of images of the prophet, which are proscribed as an outrageously offensive act against their faith. But there was as much artifice as genuine outrage in some of the protests, especially in police states such as Iran and Syria, where mobs burned buildings with what looked like the sanction of the regime. For all the unacceptable arrogance of people who assume the right to impose their own religious views on everybody else, it is important not to demonise all of Islam on the basis of this cartoon controversy.

Certainly this is easier said than done. There is no doubting the violence catalysed by the cartoons did not do much for Islam's reputation as a religion of peace and tolerance. With their resonance of the Salman Rushdie fatwa and the vile murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh who had criticised Islam in his work, the protests against the cartoons this week were frighteningly familiar. They added to the evidence that in the Middle East, Muslims are always intolerant of any opinions other than their own, inclined to violence against those who do not share their beliefs and utterly incapable of taking a joke.

I'll care when the "vast majority" of "peaceful" muslims take to the street in protests against the terrorists.

There is only three kinds of muslims. Terrorists, those who support the terrorists and the last is the muslims who offer passive support by their silence.

They added to the evidence that in the Middle East, Muslims are always intolerant of any opinions other than their own, inclined to violence against those who do not share their beliefs and utterly incapable of taking a joke.

If only we had something more than severed heads to go on.

"There is only three kinds of muslims. Terrorists, those who support the terrorists and the last is the muslims who offer passive support by their silence"

The largest group of muslims, is the last you mentioned, the silent majority.
Whether they are silent and offering passive support, or are silent because they are infinately more familiar with, and directly impacted/threatened in their daily lives by the first two groups, is the question that has yet to be clearly answered.
I am perfectly capable of supporting the measured decision of consigning of an extremely large number of people to death via war, including inflicting nuclear weapons on them.
What I am not convinced of, is the need to do so, at this time.
Remember the former as in "no longer in existence" USSR?
Mutually Assured Destruction ring any memory bells?
Were the majority of the Soviet citizens equally intent on destroying the USA and the rest of the capitalist free world, for political reasons?
Not even close.
They just tried to survive as best they could in the conditions they were born into. We face a loosely comparable threat, only the mechanics and semantics of this war are different.

IMNSH and personally experienced based opinion

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.