There is a fundamental disjunct between Muslim countries and their responses to criticism, and for one particularly simple social and economic factor: apart from some exceptions, many Muslims live in countries with very poorly-executed or non-existent freedom of speech.

The lack of understanding of what the free press entails, and why keeping it free is a good thing? Yeah, well, considering the fact that their own fucking governments used to fucking torture dissidents who spoke out, not in violent, reactionary ways, but in moderate, intellectual ways, not 10 or 20 years ago?

The thing is, ideas like the free press and a secular state have had over 300 years to develop in Western countries. Muslim countries have had only, what, sixty years, tops.

To expect the general Muslim population to just get with the program in what amounts to three generations of oftentimes heavy-handed and unpleasant change?

The fact is, the Jyllands-Posten outcry in itself died down relatively quickly is a sign that things are changing. Certainly not fast enough to dispel a stereotype, but there’s a change. Just ten years ago it was a death sentence, massive demonstrations and several (successful and unsuccessful) assassination attempts made on translators and editors of the Satanic Verses. And that was one book.

When the Prophet Muhammad’s images came up (and they were unpleasant and hurtful to many Muslims), what do we get? Nasty riots, sure, a public outcry and talk of diplomatic and political sanctions, and then, six months later, a series of equally vile and unpleasant cartoons regarding the Holocaust, and more wank. If I had to choose between wank and assassinations, I’d choose wank, thank you.

If the Muslim community stood and said SHUT UP YOU ASSES in response to horrible statements, things might be seen differently.

You make the assumption that they don’t. The difference here is who is making the outcry, and who is reporting it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)