One of these women is a religious fundamentalist, armed with an assault rifle, and a religious text condoning the killing of those who oppose God’s prophet… The other is Muslim.
The image highlights the assumptions Americans bring to global issues and political discourse. We see Muslims decked out in camo, thumping Qur’ans and bearing assault rifles in a very different light than we do the more “harmless” Evangelical varieties in the United States. But what, really, is the difference (if any)?
One of these women, it can be argued, believes in “defending her country” with the arms she is bearing… But which woman? Wouldn’t both of these women argue the very same thing? That hardly means we should accept this explanation uncritically, but the fact that both would – and do – justify themselves in the same terms should be a sobering realization.
Sure, we can all point to this passage or that in the Qur’an and say “See! This book condones bad things.” But we can do the same with the Bible, can’t we?
Sure, apologists for the Bible will point out that “the original language doesn’t really say that.” But the same is true for the Qur’an and Islam. The vast majority of Muslims don’t believe the Qur’an says or means what many viewing it from the outside are told to believe it says.
There’s a saying “All translations are lies.” But without knowing Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Arabic, many pundits and self-described religious experts weigh in on what each book “really says.”
Take a good hard look at these images and tell us: is there really a difference? And if there is, is that difference really as big as we first assume when we look at these two pictures?
(Article by Ari Simeon and Isa Abu Jamal)