Prejudice? Maybe. Insensitive? Absolutely!

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE: The National Conservative Weekly Since 1944

Cartoon Rage Grows Worldwide
by Robert Spencer
Posted Feb 01, 2006

Muslim rage over cartoons of Muhammad published in early October in a Danish newspaper continues to grow worldwide. These cartoons are less offensive than what is routinely printed in every American newspaper about politicians. Yet rage over them keeps growing:

• Gaza:

On Monday, gunmen seized an EU office, demanding apologies from Denmark and Norway (where another publication later reprinted the
cartoons).
On Tuesday, demonstrators chanted “War on Denmark, death to Denmark” as they burned Danish flags.

• Arab interior ministers declared: “We ask the Danish authorities to take the necessary measures to punish those responsible for this
harm and to take action to avoid a repeat.”

• Libya and Saudi Arabia recalled their ambassadors from Copenhagen, while in Saudi Arabia, a mob beat two employees of the Danish corporation Arla Foods, which has been subjected to a crippling boycott throughout the Islamic world -- a boycott that has been endorsed by, among others, the Sudanese Defense Minister.

• Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari complained to the Danish ambassador to Baghdad, while Danish troops were put on alert there after a fatwa concerning the cartoons was issued.

Even Bill Clinton has decried “these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam” and huffing self-righteously: “So now what are we going to do? ... Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?” Of course not. The cartoons are not a manifestation of anti-Islamic prejudice: criticism of Muhammad or even of Islam is not equivalent to anti-Semitism. Islam is not a race; the problems with it are not the product of fear mongering and fiction, but of ideology and facts -- facts that have been stressed repeatedly by Muslims around the world, when they commit violence in the name of Islam and justify that violence by its teachings. Noting that there is a connection between the teachings of Muhammad
and Islamic violence is simply to manifest an awareness of what has been repeatedly asserted by bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Zarqawi, and so many others. Do all these men misunderstand and misrepresent the teachings of Muhammad and Islam? This question, as crucial as it is, is irrelevant here. The fact is, these and other jihad terrorists claim Muhammad’s example and words as their inspiration. Some of the cartoons call attention to that fact.

What this ultra-conservative writer does not realize is that it is not the cartoon criticism of the ideology that has so many Muslims up in arms. It is the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in any "graven image" form. The vast majority of Muslims realize that the ideology offered by the likes of Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi, et al, is a politicalization and pervesion of the Holy Koran. Indeed the terrorist approach is used by a minute minority of Muslims, most of them being from the Middle East. However, the depiction of Muhammad in any graven, printed or sculptured form is "haram"... unholy... and the original teaching for this belief is in the Old Testament, specifically in the Ten Commandments.

While the ultra-conservatives proclaim to be God-fearing Christians, they fail to allow principles of any other faith to co-exist. They are so entrenched in their own perversion and politicalization of Christianity that they cannot see the evil acts they commit against others having different beliefs. I refer each and every conservative to Madison's Remonstrance and the First Amendment. Additionally, I ask them to review their own records of protest when Jesus Christ was depicted in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs. Anyone remember the movie, "The Last Temptation of Christ"? There were "mobs" outside of many theaters and some minor acts of violence. Again, there seems to be a sword of vengeance that has a double standard attached.

Further, given the words of ultra-conservative Christian leaders, and commentators like Ann Coulter, how can anyone conclude that there is not a prejudice present in the commentary of conservatives. Perhaps there was not any such intent in the cartoons of this instance, but perhaps there was. The cartoons do not speak for what is in the hearts and minds of the artists or the publisher. In any case, the protest of Muslims around the world are not solely based on the perception of such prejudices, but also include the issue of prohibited graven images.