Baneeskhan, the fundamentalist

Submitted by Octavio Johanson (Italy), Mar 13, 2006 at 06:44

I know that the word "fundamentalist" only means that someone belives in the "fundamentals" of his religion. But I also see it as a form of disrespect for other religions. Given his blasphemy against Jesus Christ, Baneeskhan is a fundamentalist. Needless to say, if someone offended his religion, Baneeskhan would react very violently. He would not even argue about it. He would intimidated the person who dared diminishing his religion. Yet, he keeps offending Jesus Christ in a way which is not acceptable in the slightest. Let us see what his blasphemy consists of: 1) he denies that Jesus Christ died on a cross 2) he denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Now, considering how sensitive Muslims are about their own religion, I am outraged when I hear these things. Is it ok to offend some religions, but not others? Baneeskhan is a fundamentalist: there is no room for an open-ended debate with a person like him. I hope I will never meet him, anyway. Not only is he a fundamentalist, but he has got his own double-standards, because he sees it as perfectly acceptable to offend Jesus Christ, whereas he does not see as acceptable any offence against his own creed. Let me quote the Bible: "Do not do onto others what you would not like to be done onto you". Baneeskhan, the fundamentalist, would certainly benefit from this lesson.

---

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".