Unclear Conclusion on Article "Destroying Sculptures of Muhammad"

Submitted by David Koral (United States), Feb 28, 2008 at 09:54

I'm not quite sure what Daniel Pipes means by concluding that soft Islamism is just as dangerous as violent Islamism; if indeed artistic representations of the founder of Islam are offensive to the religion's adherents, then Muslims should be within their rights to request, politely, that these images be removed from public view.

I don't seen any danger in that; the only danger I see is when "polite requests" infringe on the rights of others, as we are seeing, for example, with Muslim cabdrivers who refuse to accept blind passengers with guide dogs.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".