A Dangerous Precedent

Shari'a Or Else

Read the insightful article written by Fleming Rose, the editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten:

I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism.

As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.

The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

This is an argument that lands very close to home for me, and I know only too well what capitulation of those basic human rights principles can mean in a world where giving in once, is followed by further demands. This is why we have a 'no negotiation with terrorists' policy, and fear of reprocusions can be a final death sentence:

Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding.

Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.)

Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive coverage of Islam.

So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded.

We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.
[...]
One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.

One should never be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. You take that right away and you are setting a dangerous precedent.

We have shown that we are afraid of consequences, and therefore are willing to sacrifice our own fundamental beliefs. And the Muslim attitude is: " Free speech is good so long as it tolerates our right, as an identity group, to dictate which free speech is authentic and allowable. Otherwise, y’know, we get to torch".

Dymphna: "This exporting of Muslim violence wouldn’t be so noticeable if the Europeans weren’t so flaccid and neutered. It’s much easier to explode in the middle of a city which gave up its manhood years ago."

Tiger Hawk: "Resurgent Islam is changing this dynamic. The cartoon intifada has taught us that Muslims all over the world believe that they have the religious obligation to reach in to Western countries and nullify our most cherished rights. Not only does the "Muslim street" think this, but we have endured the absurd spectacle of Arab kings lecturing the Danes and other Europeans about respect."

But this lack of balance between the freedoms—rather than being exploited by the West to make its case for free speech and its necessity as the guiding principle of liberalism—is instead being exploited by neophyte identity politicians in the Muslim world, who have learned to play the victim card so quickly that our own State Department has bought into their affected outrage at victimization and religious “intolerance."

Understanding Islam and its doctrine of global conquest as God's primary command, i.e. Jihad, turns all of these fine, academically sound considerations on its head.

The restrictions we put on free speech arise out of practical concerns, one of which should not be the threat of intentional violence by those who disagree with the substance of a critique that is not meant as an act of instigatory violence. Re: the necessity of provocation, see Christopher Hitchens.

Consider the fact that any citizen, even leaders in these societies, who says anything that Muslims don't like, is marked for death. In the Netherlands, Members of parliament who have been marked for death for their speeches, fearing for their lives and the lives of members of their families, in light of the murder of Theo Van Gogh and terrorist attacks, are now practically living under house arrest and in exile in their own country for fear of their guests. What an irony, an irony that is eerily reminiscent of the Trojan Horse.

The apparent inability of the West to understand the motivation of Islamic extremism and terrorism, the lack of will, and the absence of any coherent and effective idea for dealing with the intrinsic problem of the diametrical nature of Islam to the Western ideals, is baffling. What is even more troubling is the doctrine of appeasement (excuses on behalf of Islam by western leaders) that is emerging in response to Islamic terrorist attacks, threats, and apparent intimidation of the West, whereby European leaders have elected to appease Muslims rather than engage them in honest and constructive dialog to transform the fundamental ideology that breeds hatred and inspires unspeakable acts of cruelty. I cannot help but think that this response is eerily reminiscent of the tepid response to the rise of Nazism, not too long ago.

Contrary to the expectations of the West, surveys continue to show that many Western educated Muslims and Muslims dwelling in Western societies, including naturalized citizens and their descendants, are very resentful of the West. Their diatribes and incendiary comments are clear signs of danger that have gone unheeded. In the name of Islam, many of them have indeed taken up arms against their adopted Western countries and actively seek their destruction.

As they have shown, there is no question that Islam does not allow ijtihad (free play of the intellect - independent or innovative thinking) and qiyyas (analogical reasoning). After all, what is the need for those, if the only thing that matters is taqlid (imitation) of an act that took place in A.D 622 and A.D. 630. In Islam, the fundamental duty of each member is to submit to Allah and whatever Allah demands of him or her. Frequently, the "demands" that Allah makes of Muslims seem to be the unquestioned demands that Islamic clerics have presented, by way of fatwas (or holy edicts), which they issue to Muslims. Many of these fatwas are essentially calls to one "religious war" (jihad) or another, such as has been with Israel, and now is in Europe and America.

Dr. Sanity: "Notice that the cartoon riots are escalating even as the West bends over backwards to appease and mollify these sociopathic bullies of Islam? I'm sorry to tell you that the increasingly violent Islamic response to appeasement, solicitation, and understanding has always been completely predictable from a psychological perspective. Bullies will always push the envelope of bad behavior when they think they can get away with it."

The result of caving in to the demands the Islamists have been making, using the Muhammad cartoons to incite rage and riots across the world, is this and this. And trust me, this is just the beginning. A terrorist always returns once his demands have been met once. As I said, we are setting a dangerous precedent.

More @ Power Line, The Brussels Journal, Atlas Shrugs, Dr. Sanity, USS Neverdock, The Real Ugly American, Why Are We Back In Iraq?, Outside The Beltway, Blinq, Say Anything, Centerfield, Secular Blasphemy, Sisu, Riehl World View, A Blog For All, The Sundries Shack, Hyscience, Townhall Blogs, The Corner on National, USS Neverdock (2), Mudville Gazette

UPDATE: The BBC will now institutionalize the use of the phrase "pbuh" (peace be upon him) throughout the Islam section, when referring to the Prophet Muhammad. Yeah right.  (ht Gates of Vienna comments section).

Related on ATB:

'Islamberg' In New York
Islam's Heart On St.Valentine's Day
The Metastasizing Shari'a
A Perilous Premise
Religious Dogma Has No Place In A Secular Society
"The Nation of Islam Will Sit At The Throne Of The World..."
Is There Any Difference Between Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity And Shari'a
Is Western Liberalism Modifying It's Core Beliefs
The Cartoon War
Take A Walk On The Wild Side
The Effect Of Our Holy Trinity Of Multiculturalism, Moral Equivalence And Relativism On The War Of Destiny
The Unexploded Bomb Of Global Politics
The Jihad Apocalypse 'A Muslim Obligation'
The Clash of Civilizations
'The Enemy Within'
Secular Democracy Held To Ransom

Comments

[Mike Andreyakovich]

The more I think of the Muslims, the more I think of Nine Inch Nails - the song "The Hand That Feeds" applies much better to them (including, I hasten to add, the cowed and silent moderates) than to its original, BDS-inspired target.

You're keeping in step
In the line
Got your chin held high and you feel just fine
Because you do
What you're told
But inside your heart it is black and it's hollow and it's cold

Just how deep do you believe?
Will you bite the hand that feeds?
Will you chew until it bleeds?
Can you get up off your knees?
Are you brave enough to see?
Do you want to change it?

What if this whole crusade's
A charade
And behind it all there's a price to be paid
For the blood
On which we dine
Justified in the name of the holy and the divine

Just how deep do you believe?
Will you bite the hand that feeds?
Will you chew until it bleeds?
Can you get up off your knees?
Are you brave enough to see?
Do you want to change it?

So naive
I keep holding on to what I want to believe
I can see
But I keep holding on and on and on and on

Will you bite the hand that feeds you?
Will you stay down on your knees? (8X)

Someone ought to edit together a video of "The Hand That Feeds," only with Muslims on jihad instead of Christians sending soldiers off to fight the GWOT. Trent Reznor would shit his pants.

[RL]

emircaner.com
erguncaner.com

eeinternational.org/dykfs/

2/3 of muslims who are born-again/redeemed into
the evidential, historic, and Biblical Christian
Faith, were deeply-religious and practicing
muslims before their conversion experience
(according to several recent surveys).

answering-islam.org

[Dan Kauffman]

As you have brought up the subject of Precedents?

Tobacco is SACRED
I have been following recent news with great interest and I feel that in the spirit of equal opportunity, I as a descendant of the Ani-Yun-Wi-Ya.
(Total of all real people) should point out that I have found the lack of respect and Honor accorded the Sacred Herb of my Ancestors, highly offensive.

Since it appears that in some quarters decisions have been made to avoid offending other religions even to the extent of discarding basic Liberties and Freedoms then my Religion too should be accorded the same respect.

[Liquid]

Check out Barbara Stock's Islamic Leaders Step From Behind the Curtain

[Huan]

stefan, nice analogy.

i suspect they won't deliver themselves to their potential.

[gringoman]

Above comment should have added:

BUY DANISH

[gringoman]

Sad? Ludicrous? Troubling? Or just ignominious, abject, pathetic and deeply revolting? 2500 years of Western civilization, culture, gods, goddesses, God, tragedy, plague, exploration, invention from jet flight to the Internet, creation from Shakespeare to Bach to the rule of law, discoveries from the swamps to the stars , where even the shape of the mosque was made possible by the stupendous Pantheon and the Roman dome ---for what? For the triumph of the wuss and the weasel?

from CARTOONS AND WEASEL WORLD at gringoman

[Stefan]

I don’t know if Europe is going to respond eventually to these attacks against them but I do think it is very possible that it may slowly turn to face this problem. Since the Great War, and especially after WWII, Europe has lost all faith in itself. It is like knowing someone who has all kinds of talent and promise but has been paralyzed by experiences of failure and humiliation and now refuses to try. Modern Europe has decided that war will always fail and they convinced themselves that they have found the magic bullet (hmmm) that will finally slay the God of War: “Dialogue”. They have attempted to “unify” Europe in the dream that there will be no more European War and have invested themselves into the UN and other attempts at international government. This all seemed (to them) like it was going to work because they were sheltered and kept safe by their dominant ally: The United States. Terrorism (among other things) has shattered their little dream of a world without warfare by slipping inside and using their own extreme political correctness to kick them in the teeth. The more they accommodate, the more accommodations are demanded. The more they allow their soil to be used to cultivate extremism the more they are targeted by the fruits of these violent communities. It is not like there are fundamentalist Muslim communities that wish to hold their adherents to a strict lifestyle ala the Amish, but rather this fundamentalism is violent, aggressive, ambitious, and rotten from root to branch. It is not that Islam is incompatible with a pluralistic society but it is a fact that a large number of Muslims are not interested in the slightest. Why plea-bargain when you think you can beat the rap, so-to speak. They think they have a good shot at bringing down the fat, aged, and decaying west so why bother cutting deals? Europeans are caricatured as being very arrogant and there is arguably truth to this. I hope that some of this arrogance (hopefully in the form of a little genuine pride) will finally not take anymore slaps in the face and begin to push back. Again, has anyone heard anything about the mood of the European populations in all this? I only hear from pundits, editors, and politicians. Any polls being taken? Any change in opinion these last few weeks?

[dymphna]

I like to laugh. Some of the Muslim cartoons are funny. I liked Catholic jokes/cartoons when I was a Catholic. And now that I'm an Episcopalian, the fun is simply endless. heh.

When my behavior causes a tantrum, it tends to make me either continue to do whatever it was, or to get away from the idjit who is going off over my behavior.

The pusillanimous Western "press" could've brought this to a stop a long time ago by printing a thousand cartoons. But no, they have to push the "sensitive Muslim street" meme. Fact is, they're scared.

I intend to keep publishing Islam cartoons until they are no longer interesting. Having just finished judging a pbuh cartoon contests, I can tell you that there are some which aren't very interesting. But there are some hilarious ones, too. Especially those which take ordinary objects, like gasoline cans, or others, which use Western ideas and fuse them onto Islam. For example, Moe of Moe, Curly, and Shemp...he's in a turban with his arms folded. Simple photoshop, but very amusing, even though I don't understand the caption (I think it's Danish).

Life is too short not to laugh. Of course, Mohammed thought laughter was dangerous. Open your mouth to laugh and you let the devil in...he's probably right. That certainly explains the Irish.

[Jeff Durkin]

To some degree, I can understand Europe's reluctance to face up to the Muslim problem. Given that (at least, in my opinion): we are engaged in a Huntingtonesque war of civilizations; that Europe has a large, hostile Muslim population; that Europe's proximately to the Muslim core makes it much easier for Jihadis to get to (once again, we should be thankful for the Atlantic); that Europe's immigration policies of the last 30 or so years were designed to let people in, but not assimilate them and, in fact, provided the Islamists with the tools needed to set up parallel cultures; and that the Europeans spent most of the last century doing their best to wipe each other out, their reticence about confronting the hostile populations within Europe in a fashion we would find acceptable are not unreasonable. Those who are counseling appeasement – at least those not overcome with a self-loathing of the West – probably have visions of a much more violent version of the Muslim riots in France last year…or even a full-fledged insurgency across the breadth of Europe.

The question to ask is not “is this appeasement wrong or a betrayal of the West”, but “is it leading to something?” To take Munich as an example, the popular image of the 1938 deal between Germany, France and England, was that the Western European states were so interested in peace that they were willing to buy it at any price. However, before completely condemning Chamberlain, one has to keep in mind that, prior to the Munich meeting, he had been told by the British military (in the midst of a rearmament program along with France) that they were incapable of facing Germany militarily at that time (which was almost certainly incorrect…not all intel failures happen to the Bush Administration J). So, when the PM went to Munich, he went thinking that he had no cards to play. Standing up to Hitler was not seen as a viable option. Both the British and the French were well aware of the threat Hitler and Germany posed, but thought they could do nothing about it until they were better prepared. Of course, other factors played in to their decision-making process (the French, in particular, were not very keen on sacrificing another generation of men on the battlefield), but the perception of incapacity must have weighed heavily upon the French and British.

The reason I bring this up is that it relates to the question I posed. If the current efforts are designed to keep the European Muslim population mostly placated, while the European states prepare for an inevitable conflict, than the policy makes sense. I would rather have the European core play the appeasement card for a while, if they are using that time to prepare for a more effective role in the Western-Islamic conflict. If, however, the policies of appeasement are being followed in order to avoid a fight – to buy peace at any price, rather than push back a conflict until they are ready to fight it – than the West has a serious problem. If the latter is the case, than Europe’s leaders have fundamentally misread the threat Islam poses and we may find ourselves having to “liberate” Europe…again. I am hopeful that they (enough of Europe’s leaders and population) are not this blind and are following the former path. Some of the policies put in place or proposed in the last few years by the UK, France, Germany and others (as well as a growing segment of Europeans who are wary of the Muslim population in their countries) give some reason for long-term optimism, even if, in the short-term, they appear to be set to become the Caliphate of Al-Franj.

In my humble opinion, of course.

[RL]

written like a misguided, misinformed, and true atheist.

ericmetaxas.com

dontwasteyourlife.com

greatcom.org/laws/english/flash/

leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/index.html

: )

[ronled]

Call it a male bonding thing. The behavior, to me, as an atheist, of religion is tied to sexuality and demands of women to submit. Just look at the National Organization of Women challenge to the Christian Promise Keepers in the US. The sensitivities of religious folks did not interfere with offering a critique.

Next time you hear someone say something about the numbers of muslims just cut that number in half, and always refer to it as the muslim men. Let the reader do their own math if they insist on including submissive enslaved women within the number of religious believers. References to men-only works fine too for Christians like the Promise Keepers and the Catholic men as well. Soon, the religious differences fall off and you are left only with a religious variant of some mens club.

Be blunt.

"Men's Rape Club, Why Go Islamic When Christian Will Do Just Fine?"
http://pdxnag.com/drupal/node/953

A male Christian might have to confront their own sexuality hangups were they forced to see just how similar their attitudes and beliefs are toward the role of women to that in the Muslim world. It is more similar than different.

Keep the perspective in perspective.

[Darrell]

It is apparent to me that the "Toon War" farce is just a show of force to the West, intended to give second thoughts to anyone planning an attack on Iran's nuclear weapons program. Notice how each day's news focuses on one other country with a large Muslim population, Indonesia and the Philippines being the latest. And if you can burn a few Christian Churches and kill a few Christians while you're at it, so much the better!

As usual, the Arab's 2000 year curse(ask the Buddhists)holds, and the plan is backfiring. They are awakening the world to the real and present danger of Islam and more and more people are starting to question the "Religion of Peace" propaganda put out by the Western MSM. So, carry on! If you can awaken the Europeans, you can work miracles! Just leave Papa Chavez in Venezuela alone! Sure, his principles are opposed to you and everything you stand for and the Left will surely gather up your religious leaders in the night when they are in power, never to be heard of again...but such is life! A deal is a deal, right?