[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

From the article:


This is exactly what I mean by a tolerant shrug. Sorry, he is not condemning violent reactions. Rather, he “urges” Muslims to exercise “restraint”. Is the restraint “urged” because it is wrong to do violence? No, it is urged so as to not “hurt the followers” of Islam. What about urging restraint because it is wrong to do harm to others who don’t believe as you do? What about condemning violent responses to hateful speech as being antithetical to the word of Allah, the teachings of Mohammend and “not compatible with the task of religious leaders to “promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence”?

He does not defend the right of people to speak their mind. Instead, he “stress[es] the importance of not letting this [burning] occur.” If DWOC wants to legally make his statement how can he be prevented except by violence? By changing the fundamental constitutional guarantees of our country?

Where is the unequivocal condemnation of violence? Where is the “violence in response to speech is sinful”?

This statement by “Iraq’s top Shiite Muslim leader” is exactly the type of reaction that I am talking about. Tell the faithful it is wrong and evil to kill in response hatred. Tell them this idiot has the right to make his own choices about Allah. Tell them that any one who encourages them to harm others in response to this action is working against the will Allah. Don’t simply "urge restraint" because a violent response might make Islam look bad.

In order to truly “promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence”, I would hope for more from “Iraq’s top Shiite Muslim leader”.

I feel like we read the same article....yet we didn't read the same article...I will now print out your posts and torch them