| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism by Daniel Pipes |
| 2006-02-08 |
| The key issue at stake in the battle over the twelve Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise; Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not. More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy an immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones; are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities? Germany’s Die Welt newspaper hinted at this issue in an editorial: “The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical. When Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet.” Nor, by the way, have imams protested the stomping on the Christian cross embedded in the Danish flag. The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who published the cartoons, explains that if Muslims insist “that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos, … they're asking for my submission.” Precisely. Robert Spencer rightly calls on the free world to stand “resolutely with Denmark.” The informative Brussels Journal asserts, “We are all Danes now.” Some governments get it: · Norway: “we will not apologize because in a country like Norway, which guarantees freedom of expression, we cannot apologize for what the newspapers print,” commented Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. · Germany: “Why should the German government apologize [for German papers publishing the cartoons]? This is an expression of press freedom,” said Interior Minister Wolfgang Schauble. · France: “Political cartoons are by nature excessive. And I prefer an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship,” commented Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. Other governments wrongly apologized: · Poland: “the bounds of properly conceived freedom of expression have been overstepped,” stated Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz. · United Kingdom: “the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong,” said Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. · New Zealand: “gratuitously offensive,” Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton called the cartoons. · United States: “"Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable,” said State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus. Strangely, as “Old Europe” finds its backbone, the Anglosphere quivers. So awful was the U.S. government reaction, it actually won the endorsement of the country’s leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This should come as no great surprise, however, for Washington has a history of treating Islam preferentially; and on two earlier occasions it also faltered in cases of insults concerning Muhammad. In 1989, Salman Rushdie came under a death edict from Ayatollah Khomeini for satirizing Muhammad in his magical-realism novel, The Satanic Verses. Rather than stand up for the novelist’s life, President George H.W. Bush equated The Satanic Verses and the death edict, calling both “offensive.” Secretary of State James A. Baker III termed the edict merely “regrettable.” Even worse, in 1997 when an Israeli woman distributed a poster of Muhammad as a pig, the U.S. government shamefully abandoned its protection of free speech. On behalf of President Bill Clinton, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns called the woman in question “either sick or … evil” and stated that “She deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam.” The State Department endorses a criminal trial for protected speech? Stranger yet was the context of this outburst; as I noted at the time, having combed through weeks of State Department briefings, I “found nothing approaching this vituperative language in reference to the horrors that took place in Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands lost their lives. To the contrary, Mr. Burns was throughout cautious and diplomatic.” Western governments should take a crash course on Islamic law and the historically-abiding Muslim imperative to subjugate non-Muslim peoples. They might start by reading the forthcoming book by Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale). Peoples who would stay free must stand unreservedly with Denmark. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #9 DARE WORLD CARTOON MAKERS NEED MOTHER CINDY AND HER COMMIE AIRBORNE = OWG UNO PEACEKEEPING FORCES? ANN COULTER's new article belabels those Islamists whom desire unilateral appeasement andor concession vv TOON/HAIR-GATE as "Liberals" -well, so like the Lefties the Radics want and prefer asymmetric war and OWG = Global Caliphate? as fought for in the streets, elex and espec the Chambers of Congress. An important Israeli ambassador argues that IRAN must be stopped by the end of Y2006, whereas REGIMECHANGE. IRAN believes that Iran will proceed wid testing for both its missle and nuke devprogs. Others on the Net argue that Iran already has fission-type nuke bombs/devices. REMEMBER, THE BEST OF AMERICA'S ENEMIES ARE ALREADY CENTRALIZED, MILITARIZED, NUCLEARIZED, AND MARTIALIZED, whilest even the US DemoLeft in reality wants America to maintain its all-Volunteer Army at the same time its PC criticizing Bush and the Fed to expand and spend more, i.e. AMERICA LOSES WHETHER IT WAGES WAR OR NOT, AND LOSES WHETHER ACTING UNILATERALLY OR IN COALITION, .......FOR DOING TOO MUCH = DOING TOO LITTLE, etc. Dubya will be criticized regardless iff the USA has a draft or doesn't have a draft as per WW1, WW2, Korea 1, and Vietnam. Iran = North Korea > are wilfully and deliberately pushing the USA and world towards anti-USA "nuclear brinkmanship" ala my own adage "Iff America does NOT attack and wage war, America will be attacked and warred against, by any means necessary". The USDOD must be ready for SYRIA, IRAN, NORTH KOREA, and TAIWAN, and lest we fergit CUBA. THE DEMS-LEFTIRES HAVE NO PROBS WITH FASCIST AMERICA WAGING WAR(S) AS LONG AS A COMMUNIST, ANTI-SOVEREIGN, WEAK SSR AMERIKA IS THE FINAL OUTCOME. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-02-08 22:55 |
| #8 Of course they are; Islam means submission. It certainly doe. And the only choice islam is giving us is: 1) Do as I say or I will kill you or 2) Do as I say or take you to Sharia court. Who will sentence you to death. They don't see the hypocracy in their demands for "blasphemy" abject punishement. it's only islamic blasphemy that's objected to. How much longer until the gen pop sees this ( the LLL never will)? |
| Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827 2006-02-08 22:50 |
| #7 Strangely, as “Old Europe” finds its backbone, the Anglosphere quivers. So awful was the U.S. government reaction, it actually won the endorsement of the country’s leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. If CAIR is approves of our government's actions, you know that we've gone well off of the rails. This is why I posted about Bush's faith based sandbag coming home to roost. Denigrating our constitutional right to free expression for the sake of appeasing a bunch of violent thugs is worse than stupid, it is dangerous. Our government needs to reverse its stance immediately. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-08 17:11 |
| #6 "Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who published the cartoons, explains that if Muslims insist “that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos, … they're asking for my submission.” Of course they are; Islam means submission. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-02-08 13:27 |
| #5 I'll be impressed with the Old European's opinions when they back them up with action. |
| Posted by: Fleresh Gleash7455 2006-02-08 12:53 |
| #4 "Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who published the cartoons, explains that if Muslims insist “that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos, … they're asking for my submission.” Well, that is the central issue, isn't it? To put all this in an easy-access context: what if the Roman Catholic Church were insisting on censorship and submission, and Italians, Poles, Americans, and Latin Americans were rioting all over the world, burning embassies and the like? Would people/governments/newspapers/media be so quick to support them? Would anyone even stand for it? Put a frog in cold water and heat it up. Lessons from history . . . |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-02-08 12:11 |
| #3 If you cant say something nice dont say anything at all... didnt we learn that in Kindergarten? No, Thumpers mom said it. |
| Posted by: bk 2006-02-08 12:07 |
| #2 Phooey, BrerRabbit beat me to it. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-02-08 10:57 |
| #1 Violence Escalates over Cartoons http://iowahawk.typepad.com/ |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-02-08 10:55 |