Political Blog

Yes, I believe we should put a full economic boycott on all muslim nations.

In a previous article posted here on this blog there was a statement regarding the resolve to defend islam. There, it refered to blasphemy as an attack on islam. Ergo, the author believes it to be his duty to protect his religion. Methods of this protection are, following from his article, boycotting, ignoring, et cetera.
My point is, how different is boycotting, ignoring, et cetera from disrespecting? I exercise my beliefs by saying that “Muhammed suffered from epilepsy, and his revelations are thusly of ‘undivine’ nature”.
The author states that he respect atheists, yet with his wish to limit my freedom of expression, he assaults, he attacks with those words my love of freedom. My statement “Muhammed…nature” could be seen as a consequence to his intolerance (and that of the muslim world).
Merely because he professes islam to be reactionary (in contrast to peaceful, as some would dare claim) does not mean that these reactions do not in turn have other reactions, of which he is in part responsible (at least, if one were to feel one has the right to blame others for their actions).

It were people using islam to murder others that inspired those cartoons. Extremists using Muhammed were being displayed in those cartoons. The reaction of the western world, rather than placing boycotts on the muslim world was to finely point out critique in a responsible way. Responsible? Yes, because the method in which it was presented did not harm anyone.

These boycotts will harm people. They will harm the people in Denmark who are right now having a tough time. Likewise, boycotting the muslim world and letting victims of earthquakes and the likes without food, medicin and support would have direct casualties as a result. The western world chose for a method to vent their frustration about extremist islam by using cartoons, rather than boycotting, silencing, murdering, torching, lynching, or other methods that are seen as unhuman. The Western world recognises its global responsibility and is actively preventing escalation. It is in no means responsible for the violent, suicidal tendencies of the muslim world towards escalation. Tendencies (for they are in no case isolated incidents) that do not fit a peaceful religion.

Mahatmi Gandhi gave a method of manipulation. Civil disobedience. Islam, the religion of peace? Then call up those muslims of Syria and other nations where people are being oppressed, to inact a period of civil disobedience. No authority, history has proven, can force an entire nation to comply. If islam is a religion of peace, let alone supported by Allah, this should be within its power.

A famous western proverb, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” best describes here the choice the modern muslim faces. He can not be complacent, he can not be lazy. He can not say in 50 years, “I did not know.” He must stand up, now, and show the world that fundamentalist islam is not the path. He must actively scream out, in unison with all other muslims, against those oppresive regimes, and against war in the name of islam.

Until such interuption of complacency in the moderate muslim, doubt will remain about his true intent, and his true loyalty and devotion towards freedom (both in the western world, and abroad.

Jerôme Serpenti