http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026549.php
The matter of the Crusades is ultimately beside the point. The Islamic aversion to the cross and what it stands for in Christianity is what is truly at issue, and preceded the Crusades by several centuries. By the precedent set in the Pact of Umar, dhimmis are not allowed to display crosses publicly, regardless of color.
Israel has endured a great deal of wrangling over its right to use a red Star of David as its official symbol for aid missions under the auspices of the ICRC. In the U.K., however, a Labour minister offers a pre-emptive act of dhimmitude, suggesting the replacement of the cross with a neutral "crystal" that wouldn't be so allegedly offensive.
There is also talk of the crystal replacing the Red Crescent as well, but that talk seems to be limited to organizations not using the crescent. If this idea gains traction, one foreseeable outcome would be the Western switchover to the crystal, while the crescent stays the same. And of course, it is also telling that the chief selling point here is the desire not to offend Muslims.
Full story here:
No comments:
Post a Comment