It's worth noting, for those of us who have been following the story of Molly Norris's disappearance, that a publication called The American Muslim is calling on imams and other Muslim leaders to sign a document affirming the value of free speech and rejecting the fatwa that was issued against Molly Norris.
The authors of the document have reached out to Molly Norris and have communicated with her.
The story is on The Daily Caller.
Those who wrote and signed the letter wanted to express unambiguously their support for Molly Norris and their repudiation of the terrorist tactics of al Qaeda leaders like Anwar al-Awlaki.
Surely, this is a positive development, worthy of being noted.
Yesterday, a commenter on this blog raised the question of whether or not Molly Norris had had a choice in this matter. I thought it was a question worth considering. Perhaps she was allowed to choose between having FBI agents of US marshals follow her everywhere and going into witness protection.
Today, we are reminded by The Daily Caller that the FBI had insisted that Molly Norris go "ghost," meaning, erase her identity. It had not really given her a choice.
Thus, the question remains, why could they not have found another way to protect Molly Norris? Admittedly, the threat was serious. So were the threats against Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But why did they have to silence Molly Norris?
Interesting how nobody posted here yet. People are happy in their illusions. Most rank and file Muslims are simple and good people who do not at all identify with fringe fanatics. Everyone asks, "why don't the moderate Muslims speak out?"
ReplyDeleteTHEY DO.
But they don't make as good press as a controversial figure.
But ordinary Muslims are all over YOUTUBE and all over the internet with their own blogs.
One might even be your primary healthcare physician or dentist.