Sunday, February 05, 2006

Muslims riot over cartoons

More evidence of the incompatibility of Islam and the West:

Muslims all over the world are outraged over a series of cartoons that have appeared in European newspapers in recent months that feature the prophet Mohammed in ways that suggest he condones terrorism.
'Outraged' is to put it lightly. Death threats have been made, boycotts have ensued, property has been destroyed:

Street protests erupted from Lahore to Gaza. Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait withdrew their ambassadors from Copenhagen, calling for an apology and punishment of the editors. Danish products are being boycotted in the Middle East, where state-controlled media speak darkly of a conspiracy against Islam. Palestinian terrorists have declared Danes and other Europeans as legitimate targets. Journalists at Jyllands-Posten have received death threats. Danish flags, whose design is based on a Christian cross, are being burned.
Yesterday, the Danish embassy in Syria was set ablaze by zealots screaming "No God but Allah, Muhammed is His Prophet." The Norwegian embassy also went up in smoke.

What's all the fuss about? See for yourself (at the end of the article--the one depicting Muhammad's turban as a bomb is considered the most 'egregious'). The Koran is largely ambivalent about images of Muhammad:

There is no specific, or explicit ban on images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad - be they carved, painted or drawn.

However, chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him."

This is taken by Muslims to mean that Allah cannot be captured in an image by human hand, such is his beauty and grandeur. To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah.

The same is believed to apply to Muhammad.
That extrapolation is enough to ignite violent protests across the Middle East. The conflagration from the cartoons highlights how the values of the Islamic world and the liberal West are intrinsically at odds. Keep in mind that they were drawn in Denmark, not Yemen. When word spread to the Middle East, nationwide boycotts of Danish goods began, Danish property fell under siege, and influential Islamic groups began circulating vicious threats against Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that first ran the cartoons:

The images show bombs exploding over pictures of the newspaper, and blood flowing over the national flag and a map of Denmark...

Jyllands-Posten has been criticised by Muslims for printing the cartoons, and was forced to hire security guards after receiving hate mail and death threats over the
telephone.

Obviously the Muslim street doesn't tolerate freedom of expression at home, which is fine. Populations are different biologically and culturally. Social memes dictate what is appropriate in the native culture even though it may be abhorrent to another civilization. We are not well served by trying to deracinate the ways of a society that are rooted in thousands of years of cultural and evolutionary pressures.

But we are well served in keeping these societies out of our own. Muslims do not see any hypocrisy in excoriating Europe for negatively depicting Islam while news outlets across the Islamic world run cartoons (follow link to see them) portraying Jews as rats, the US eating the Arab world, blaming Israel for 9/11 or in Islamic governments banning bibles and the Star of David. Because they see Islamic law as absolute, there is no dissonance. The idea of tolerating an opposing viewpoint is nonexistent. Fundamentalist Christians in the US are spit upon daily. They are incessantly mocked. When a purveyor of neo-tribal hip-hop is portrayed as Christ, these religious folk do not burn down buildings. While people in the West try to convince others of their views using the pen and the podium, those in the Muslim world use the sword and the suicide bomb.

This, of course, shows a fatal flaw in the multicultural orthodoxy. Tolerance means tolerating the intolerant, who in turn act to squelch the tolerant group's right to an opinion. Consequently, multiculturalism is ripe for ethnic strife and the overthrow of the most tolerant contingents of the society (in the US, that tolerant group which gets little tolerance in return is whites, particularly those of a Christian stripe). In a democracy, it leads to special interests fighting over spoils at the expense of other special interests. In authoritarian countries it leads to the repression of minority interests (or majorities in some cases, Iraq under Saddam being the most salient). The more homogenuous a society is, the easier it is to govern and the more prosperous it tends to be (Iceland and Japan are two great examples).

Europe has been tepid in its response. Some countries, like France, have backed Jyllands-Posten and the right of the press within France to reprint the cartoons. German media have harshly criticized those who would keep them from being published and has called the Islamic world "hypocritical". Others have lambasted the depictions of Muhammad, like Great Britain. The paper itself did apologize for the cartoons after coming under tremendous pressure to do so, but Danish prime minister Rasmussen defended the freedom of the press to run them.

While it's a slow process, Europe finally seems to be waking up to the dangers posed by Islam. Nearly every country on the Old Continent has been hit by Muslims: Theo Van Gogh's murder in the Netherlands, the subway bombings in London, the train bombings in Madrid, the riots across France, the tensions between Turks and native Germans in Germany, and now this. We have plenty of problems with immigration from our neighbors to the south. But Europe is in much worse shape. We should take a hint and end immigration from predominately Muslim countries. By instituting an immigration program based on merit, we can find plenty of productive residents in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Latin America.

++Addition++FNC's Bill O'Reilly points out the hypocrisy of the leftist media in his current column (which can apparently only be accessed for a short time free of charge, hence the liberal excerpting that follows):
The New York Times will not print any of those Danish political cartoons that mock Islamic violence, but it will publish a picture of Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered with dung. What's up with that?Here's what the Times wrote about the cartoons:

"(We) and much of the rest of the nation's media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."...

But the next day, the newspaper ran a picture of the dung-covered Mary accompanying an article entitled "A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Imagery." So we can't see the prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban in the Times, but we can see a sacrilegious "gratuitous assault" on Mary that came from a shameful Brooklyn Museum exposition in 1999...

Once again, we have a huge double standard in play in the secular-progressive press. In 1989, the Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe, among others, published a picture by photographer Andres Serrano that showed the crucified Christ submerged in urine. Serrano was also featured in a New York Times fashion spread, according to reporting in The Washington Post.

And then there was the play "Corpus Christi," which featured a gay Jesus who had sex with some Apostles. The New York Times opined that folks who protested the play had "contempt for artistic expression."Maybe I'm wrong, but dung on Mary, Christ submerged in urine, and a gay Jesus just might be "gratuitous assaults on
religious symbols."

Some of the NYT's hypocrisy stems from the far-left's disdain for Christianity because of the Church's opposition to the 'culture of death', same-sex marriage, and other leftist social causes. And that around 85% of Americans are at least nominally Christian means they are the majority, and part of the multicult dogma is to reflexively despise the majority. Muslims are a helpless group persecuted by evil cowboys like Bush first and illiberal/intolerant second (if at all). There's also an element of fear (which should really raise concerns about Islamic immigration, especially in Europe)--all twelve cartoonists went into hiding after receiving numerous death threats.

Unfortunately, much of the so-called mainstream media is morally bankrupt. They scream 'free speech' in defence of seditious figures like Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill, or Kanye West (which is a strawman argument because criticizing what people say is obviously not at all the same as arguing they shouldn't have the right to say it), but when buildings are burned and people are killed over a few relatively innocuous cartoons, they come down hard on those who exercise free speech.

The cartoon brouhaha provides the strongest evidence yet of how incompatible Islamic culture is with the West. Why should we have to alter our way of life to accomodate another's cultural sensibilities, especially when they refuse to do the same? Our civilization is an amazing one. It is definitely worth saving.

(International)

6 comments:

crush41 said...

Michelle Malkin has catalogued some pictures of the Muslim riots in London in response to the cartoons. These people are apogee of intolerance. Accomodating them is obviously not the answer. The West needs to start being less tolerant of elements that labor to burn it down. Our civilization is worth saving.

Bet On Me said...

Buy Danish Goods, Support Freedom Of Expression,

http://www.danishgoods.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

so for those of you wondering about turkey admission to the eu, the answer is a resounding "no!"

crush41 said...

Malkin has also comprised a pretty comprehensive list of Danish goods. Being a visigoth who generally shops at thrift stores, the specialty brands are foreign to me, but a childhood staple does come from the Danes--Legos!

Regarding the anon's comment, I agree. Turkey's admission into the EU would be an absolute disaster for Europe. It would become a launching pad for Muslims across the Middle East to find their way into European enclaves and continue to demand liberal society be transformed in the image of Sharia law.

Parapundit's RP points to Turkey Prime Minister Erdogan condemning the cartoons and demanding that freedom of the press not be used to insult people's religious beliefs. While the leftist press tends to treat Christianity--which is largely a force for good especially among the less endowed--superciliously, it strikes us as ludicrous to think that the the Washington Post should not be able to editorialize against the Catholic Church or Rolling Stone not be able to mock Christ by having a thug portray him.

faq said...

They're going tit for tat. Looks like an Iranian paper will test freedom of expression:

A prominent Iranian newspaper said Tuesday it would hold a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust to test whether the West extends the principle of freedom of expression to the Nazi genocide as it did to the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

Too bad for the Persians we'll win. Jews won't start burning down buildings, threatening to kill everyone in Iran. That's the difference bw us.

crush41 said...

faq,

Of course. Although there are several countries that have anti-Holocaust denial laws on the books. There is a sort of double standard that can be argued by advocating the publication of the cartoons and at the same time keeping the anti-Holocaust denail laws on the books. Yet, there's a substantial difference in that the Holocaust is verifiable while cartoons of Muhammad or the Muslim heaven are unempirical conjecture.

I would like the Holocaust denial law to be repealled in favor of slander/libel cases being potentially brought forward by any damage deemed to have been caused directly by them. Historical denial shouldn't be a crime (legally, just a crime against one's own erudition).

But I'm not an unfettered egalitarian--I'm much less worried about removing this specific Ashkenazi Jew protection if my larger society deems it necessary than I am in keeping open the right of Danish newspapers to print things that demonstrate just how illiberal and nutty the Muslim world is. The former group has added tremendously to human civilization, while elements of the latter seem bent on tearing it down.

The silver lining in every Muslim attack or act of destruction is that it reveals how hostile this society is to the West. The more egregious the Islamic world acts now, the better, because the West still has the upper hand if/when it reacts seriously. As time goes on and the demographic trends in Europe continue (continual influx of Muslims), the European countries, being democratic, will move closer and closer to sharia law if that's what their new residents would like (and all indications are that it is).