It could be said, that if Mohamed wasn’t the main focus of that culture, that it could be much better, possibly even a contributor to helping humanity, rather than simply trying to ‘harness’ it. It’s debatable. It should be debatable, but who knows -it would probably be “offensive” to think such things to some.
It has come to the point now where Mohammed, the man or the myth, absolutely NEEDS to be the focus of debate and/or criticism. This is not about people’s comfort zones any more, because Mohammed is the focal point upon which militant Islamism rests.
Islam is an evangelizing religion. There is the claim often made, likely by any devout Muslim, that Mohammed is the perfect role model. There are discussions upon which kind of toothbrushes he used, for that settles which toothbrush that any Muslim ought to use. There is nothing to mundane where Mohammed is not to be used as the example.
At what point is it blasphemy therefore to say “balderdash”! Are we to follow the lead of a Vatican newspaper, and accept that blasphemy is whatever Muslims say blasphemy is? At what point is it too offensive, too blasphemous even, to say that the Mohammed of Islamic lore is a very poor role model to follow?
But to the extent that a Muslim believes in Mohammed as the iconic role model on which to pattern their lives, how are they to counter the militant Islamists, who pattern their new utopias precisely on the life and times of Mohammed?
Actually, how could this not be offensive to have this discussion on some level, given what has been written about Mohammed, and is generally accepted by mainstrean Islam as authentic Hadith on his biography?
Whether or not Mohammed was more man than myth is almost beside the point. People believe in Mohammed either way.
Pamela Geller is deemed offensive because she does not believe that Mohammed is a good role mode for society to pattern itself after. If Islam was not an evangelizing religion with global aims, this would not really even matter though, except maybe for the child brides et al. But 911 was a clear statement that Islam had bolder aims.
It is neither mockery, nor hatred, nor out of line to state in no uncertain terms a resounding NO! to those aims.
Pamela Geller at least is clear on where she stands on the issue. Catholics who are too uncomfortable to enter into this kind of conversation, by definition, cannot be clear.
