Should we have spared the Nazis' feelings as well?

Submitted by lindamarion (United States), Oct 2, 2012 at 19:06

Pipes appears to be making the point that since Muslims are sincerely, nay, truly/madly/deeply sensitive to any criticism, let alone "insult", directed at the founder of their religion, who in their eyes has acquired a "saint-like quality".

Mr. Pipes, it is a matter of historical fact that the "prophet" Mohammed -- assuming he ever really existed, a claim open to challenge -- became a murdering and tyrannical warlord who increased his power through pillage and theft, preached hatred and conquest of "unbelievers", and who not only married a 9-year-old child but engaged in certain sexual behaviors with her from the age of 6. This is attested to in Islam's own "holy" writings. The groveling neurotic adoration of this repellent individual by Muslims is testimony to their own irrationality and makes no claim whatsoever upon the nature of our evaluation of his character or of their reaction to perceived "insults" to it, which includes increasingly strident calls for curtailment of our freedom of speech.

Mr. Pipes, as I'm sure you are aware, the true believer Nazis in 1930s Germany felt much the same about Adolph Hitler, their Fuhrer. Should those who understood his genocidal nature have refrained from "insulting" him to spare their feelings? The Fuhrer became the center of these deluded people's lives, and the result of that obsession is history. Are we to give Muslims a pass because they use the word "prophet" instead?

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".