Spend a little time talking to jihadis and a common theme emerges: they believe it is their religious duty to fight. In their view, this duty is imposed on them in the Quran and by the example of the Prophet Muhammed who, by most accounts in the most widely accepted hadiths, is a man not averse to killing his enemies and spreading Islam through force and the sword. If you are a Muslim and reject the authenticity of those hadiths and of that interpretation of Quranic verses, then what's the problem?

As the Demosophist has reminded me on several occasions, if Muhammed didn't endorse violent jihad then the caricature of him in Danish newspapers is of a false Muhammed and therefore should be offensive to no one. However, if Muhammed did endorse violent jihad, then he deserves to be blasphemed.

Diana West in the Washington Times via Powerline.:

When the widely influential Sheik Yusef al-Qaradawi can praise Muhammad as "an epitome for religious warriors [mujahideen]," Muhammad, a jihad model, shouldn't be a taboo subject in the West, either in caricature or commentary, and certainly shouldn't be super-sacralized, in effect, by a fearfully polite censorship. The subject should be laid out for all to see.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:04 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.