E-mail
Print
Deeper issues with Muhammad cartoons
By Zak Mazur
The “cartoons of blasphemy” case should send a shudder down the spines of all of us because this is also about the aggressive nature of radical Islam.
A lot has been written about the Muhammad cartoons, but there are some facts that need to be made clear before a fair discussion can be had about the “cartoons of blasphemy.”
The first is that this was an engineered cultural clash. The cartoons were published months ago with nary a peep.
A group of radical Danish Muslim leaders later toured the Middle East and incited people with offensive cartoons that were never published by Jyllands-Posten, and only then did this become an international issue.
The second thing to keep in mind is that the cartoons were not offensive, not in the sense that Muslims or the prophet Muhammad were depicted in an overly insulting or demeaning manner.
It’s certainly not the way Jews are depicted in much of the mainstream Arabic and Islamic media. Jews are regularly depicted as stereotypically hook-nosed, greedy, bloodthirsty and manipulative killers who seek world domination. If you doubt me, visit tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm.
The truth is the only “crime” was that the prophet Muhammad was drawn at all — a big no-no in Islam, which deplores the depiction of the human form, and most certainly a prophet.
The editors at Jyllands-Posten were well aware of this Islamic injunction. They wanted to find out if freedom of speech and expression still existed in Denmark. They found out that when it comes to Islam, perhaps not.
So, the issue isn’t about non-Muslims showing insensitivity or disrespect toward Islam. A drawing of Muhammad with a big smile on his face, flowers in his hair and a shirt that reads “One Love” would still be considered “offensive” or “insensitive” by radical Muslims.
The issue is much deeper than that. It is partly about whether medieval-minded atavists can dictate what can or cannot be published in free societies. It is about our right to freedom of speech and expression.
Not too long ago Theo Van Gogh, descendent of the famous artist Vincent Van Gogh, was slaughtered like a lamb in the streets of Amsterdam for offending Muslims.
More than 10 years before that, author Salman Rushdie was accused of blaspheming Islam and sentenced to death by the Ayatollah Khomeini — a sentence that still hangs over his head.
A number of Dutch politicians currently live in hiding under police protection because they have been marked for death by radical Muslims.
To my mind, no other religion in the world currently sentences people to death for blasphemy. Radical Muslims have successfully created a worldwide chilling effect when it comes to discussing Islam, which it should be pointed out is considered by many Muslims to be a political ideology and way of life, and not merely a personal faith.
The “cartoons of blasphemy” case should send a shudder down the spines of all of us because this is also about the aggressive nature of radical Islam. It’s about non-Muslims being coerced through violence and threats of violence into bowing our heads before Islam, putting it on a pedestal above all other faiths.
Indeed, we in the West lampoon Judaism and especially Christianity, so why should Islam be given special dispensation? Is it better than other faiths and more deserving of respect? Or are we just cowed and scared?
A religious Muslim should not draw pictures of Muhammad or any other prophets if it goes against his or her religion. But why must non-Muslims in a non-Muslim country be forced to do the same?
What does it mean when certain Muslims use violence and threats in order to force their faith on non-Muslims, and what does it portend for the future if non-Muslims allow this to happen, regardless if we call it “respect and sensitivity” for Islam?
> Comments