Again we run into the highly subjective term of “moderate”, when talking about the “silent majority” of the Muslim world.
Indonesian Muslim activist, Ahmad Saudi, and three other activists currently visiting in Finland –speaking about their country and religion– insists that the Muslims can interpret the publication of the Mohamed cartoons as being the work of Christian fundamentalism. Ahmad Saudi belongs to the conservative Indonesian Muslim organization Nahdatul Ulama which opposes the establishment of Indonesia as an Islamic state.
According to the Finnish News Agency (STT) report published in the Keskisuomalainen (18.09.07 subscription only):
“Profeetta Muhammadin pilakuvien julkaiseminen on kuitenkin sellainen ilmiö, joka voi Suadin . – Monen maltillisenkin muslimin mielestä (profeetan) pilakuvan julkistaminen edustaa kristimukaan saada maltillisenkin muslimin tuohtumaan. Islamissa Muhammadin kuvaaminen on kiellettyllistä fundamentalismia. (..) Hiljainen enemmistö saattaa tukea joskus radikaaleja näkemyksiä, kun se tuntee tulleensa nöyryytetyksi, Suadi sanoi.
Translation: “The publication of the cartoons of the prophet Mohamed is kind a phenomenon, that according to Saudi, can get moderate Muslims “pissed off”. The picturing of Mohamed in Islam is forbidden fundamentalism. In the opinions of many moderate Muslims the cartoons (of Mohamed) represents Christian fundamentalism..(..) The silent majority can be brought to support sometimes radical points of view when it feels itself humiliated, Saudi stated.”
Also in yesterday’s Ilta Lehti, the same report went even further in the interview of a Finnish journalist, Luki Aulia, who works in Indonesia’s biggest newspaper in Kompas. Auli states:
“Indonesialaiset ovat maltillisia, heitä on vaikea saada suuttumaan. Sanavapaus on perusoikeus, muttei absoluuttinen oikeus”
Translation: Indonesians are moderate, they are difficult to anger. Freedom of speech is a basic right, but not an absolute right”.
Yeah right, see the familiar story line? We are all “moderates“, just don’t piss us all off and you won’t see us behaving in a “non-moderate neanderthal way“. There is something to be learned in the opinions shared by both the “moderate” Ahmad Saudi, and the Finnish “dhimmi” journalist Luki Auli.
Interestingly Ahmad Saudi depicts the drawing of Mohamed as “fundamentalism“, how much longer before the wests begins to describe it in those terms. It may be one significant indicator as to just how much the West has caved to Islamic thinking and intimidation
I am sure that Ahmad Saudi is being very sincere in statements about Indonesian “moderation” as well as the Finn, Luki Auli about the limitations of free speech. It’s just that these sentiments represent what’s wrong with both “moderate” Islam, and those in the west who have succumbed to Islamic thinking.
Both moderation and free speech can not be something turned “on and off” with the flip of a switch, being determined by the present mood of public opinion. Moderation is something real or it’s not, free speech is either an actual right to expression or it’s not. You can’t have it both ways.
No value or value system should ever enjoy a dominance in society that either stifles or restricts others from criticizing it. No ideology or religion in existence is above reproach or deserves immunity from ridicule. Other religions have faced the very same kind criticism for centuries, and I see no good reason why Islam should be exempt.
That so called Islamic “moderates” from abroad come to Europe peddling their version of moderation, while westerners prostrate themselves to the new version of the discredited dark ages, is a worrisome trend. Such thinking should be rejected on the spot, whether it’s coming from a supposed “moderate” or a western dhimmi journalist. *L* KGS.
Note: There is no such thing as the right not to be offended. Anyone caught stipulating that “supposed right” should be shown the door.