Drawing of Mohammed = Death Penalty for Christian Convert?

UPDATED: the Reuters article linked to in this post was substantially changed after publication. The original is here.

Reuters achieves new depths of Islamic pandering in “Afghan convert controversy mirrors cartoons row.”

ROME (Reuters) - The strong Western response to a threatened death sentence for an Afghan convert to Christianity looks something like a mirror image of the Muslim reaction to the Prophet Mohammad caricatures printed in the European press.

If by “something like a mirror image” they mean “completely different” then I agree. Could Reuters possibly be saying that death threats, embassy and car burnings, and taking out a bounty on the heads of those who defend free speech be equivalent to individuals calling and writing letters, and diplomatic protests of the fact that a man is subject to the death penalty for changing his religion from Islam to Christianity? No, I see in the next paragraph the writer acknowledges -

There have been no riots or sackings of Afghan embassies, unlike the violence that marked the uproar in Muslim countries after the Danish cartoons were published, but the shock and mutual incomprehension expressed in both cases are similar.

Oh, the shock and incomprehension are similar! Now I get it. Yes, being offended over a line drawing is certainly similar to being offended over the death penalty being administered to a man who converted. Way to be morally equivalent!

The difference lies in the issues at stake. In the cartoons row, Muslims stressed the sanctity of Mohammad, whom they say nobody — even non-Muslims — can criticize. The subtext was resentment against perceived Western prejudice against Islam.

Now, Western governments and societies are speaking out for religious freedom and against the death penalty.

Actually, the similarity lies in the issues at stake. In the cartoons row, Muslims demanded that even non-Muslims follow Islamic law by not drawing pictures of Mohammed, and death threats were made to those who did not comply. In the case of Abdul Rahman, Muslims (who have been freed from totalitarian rule by the expenditure of American and Western blood and treasure) demand that someone who is no longer Muslim forfeit his life for no longer being Muslim. How again is that fundamentally different? And what is there in the practice of Islam that should make Westerners respect it, given that the most prominent practitioners of it are totalitarian murderers, and the vast majority of “peaceful” Muslims either silently approve or at best tolerate it by looking the other way?

Western governments and societies have been in favor of religious freedom for a long time. It’s just that, unlike Islamists, we believe religious freedom does not mean the freedom to make other people practice your religion.

h/t LGF