Muslims Call for Critics to be Exterminated

Many Muslims feel that a series of cartoons published last year in a Danish newspaper were insulting to Islam generally and Muhammad specifically. They object to being depicted as violent terrorists. Their reaction, naturally enough, has been to encourage violence and engage in terrorist acts. That will teach Western media to tell the truth about Islam, right?

Ed Brayton has some interesting pictures of Muslim protesters in London. These people are saying that “those who slander Islam” should be exterminated and that freedom should “go to hell.” Dannyman has images as well, with people holding signs saying “Europe, you’ll come crawling when Mujahideen come Roaring,” “Liberalism go to Hell,” and even more violent examples like “Butch those who Mock Islam” and “Europe: Remember 9/11.”

It’s true that there are many Muslims who preach tolerance and peace. Huda, the Islam Guide, for example reproduces an article from Ibrahim Hooper which argues that Muhammad is depicted as reacting very tolerantly and generously towards those who insulted him. He argues that this should be viewed as a teaching moment “for Muslims who want to exemplify the prophet’s teachings through the example of their good character and dignified behavior in the face of provocation and abuse.”

What exactly are Muslims teaching non-Muslims, though? It would be nice if they were teaching that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, but it’s a difficult position to support given Muslim reactions to the cartoons. Muslims in the West have come out to promote violence against the very principles of liberal democracy and freedom of expression. Muslims in the Middle East have not only done the same, but have gone further, burning the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, Syria, as well as the Danish consulate in Beirut, Lebanon.

Where are the Muslims protesting the violent reactions to the cartoons? Why haven’t Muslims reacted with similar outrage against the terrorists whose acts have created the perception that Islam is a terrorist religion — those responsible for the 9/11 attacks in America or the beheadings of journalists and peace workers in Iraq? If this is a “teaching moment,” then Muslims are teaching the world than satirical cartoons which are critical of Islam are worthy are far more outrage and condemnation than the violent murder of peaceful people who are sympathetic to Muslims’ concerns.

Particularly disturbing about all of this is the fact that the alleged source of some of the anger, a prohibition against images of Muhammad, is not accepted by all Muslims and has not always been enforced in Muslims societies. Charles Moore writes:

There is no reason to doubt that Muslims worry very much about depictions of Mohammed. Like many, chiefly Protestant, Christians, they fear idolatry. But, as I write, I have beside me a learned book about Islamic art and architecture which shows numerous Muslim paintings from Turkey, Persia, Arabia and so on. These depict the Prophet preaching, having visions, being fed by his wet nurse, going on his Night-Journey to heaven, etc. The truth is that in Islam, as in Christianity, not everyone agrees about what is permissible.

Some of these depictions are in Western museums. What will the authorities do if the puritan factions within Islam start calling for them to be removed from display (this call has been made, by the way, about a medieval Christian depiction of the Prophet in Bologna)? Will their feeling of “offence” outweigh the rights of everyone else?

I would go even further than Moore: if the West accepts that there should be no visual depictions of Muhammad in order to avoid offending Muslims, why not also refrain from depictions of any Muslims, current, historical, or fictional? Prohibitions against idolatry include prohibitions against all depictions of all living things, not just Muhammad. Why don’t Westerns newspapers and magazines eliminate all images altogether in order to avoid offending Muslims?

Simple: because the West isn’t ruled by Muslim religious doctrines. The “respect” which Muslims are demanding here is for non-Muslims to adopt Muslim standards of what does and does not qualify as “blasphemy” — a virtual conversion to Islam. With this, non-Muslims’ right to question and criticize Islam would be surrendered in the name of not offending others. If Muslims don’t like to see visual images of living things, they should avoid looking at the media where they might find such things. They should not, however, demand that all the media conform to certain religious traditions which not even all Muslims have always followed.

There are fair and understandable reasons for Muslims to be upset about the cartoons. There are also fair and understandable reactions to such cartoons — it would be legitimate, for example, for them to write letters, stage some protests, and refuse to buy copies of the newspaper in question. It is not fair or understandable, however, for them to demand that the cartoonists be punished, to punish all of Danish society, call for the death of freedom and liberalism, or participate in destroying embassies.

All of this merely serves to demonstrate that the cartoonists had a valid point to make. Indeed, it’s ironic now that the cartoons can be published now as commentary on and critique of the Muslims’ reactions to the cartoons. Before, publishing them would have been arguably irrelevant and pointless; publishing them today, however, would be making an important point.

 

Read More:

• Islam
• News About Islam
• Islam and Politics
• Islam and the Koran
• News on Free Speech and Civil Liberties
• Recent Books on Free Speech