Weeks of sometimes violent protests by Muslims across the world against the cartoons have triggered fears of a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam. Muslims believe images of the Prophet are forbidden.
Now, I'm no expert on Sharia or the hadiths, but I have read a bit about them and from what I understand, depictions of the prophet are forbidden to Muslims. The books I have on Islamic rules, written before this event, make no mention of this being a problem for non-Muslims that requires riots and death contracts.
Having pictures of real people in your house is a sin, according to fundamentalist Muslim schools of law. Fine, I even understand that, in an 8th century kind of way. The early Muslim spiritual fathers were trying to enforce strict monotheism on people raised in polytheism and idolatry. Like the early Christians, they had to work tirelessly to keep the people from simply turning the new religion into a fresh form of the old one.
So Muslims sin if they depict the prophet. And Allah will punish them for it. But what do they care if we do it? We kufr already are bound for an eternity of burning in gehenna, and our every action is an offense to Allah. Why would they care so much about us committing a sin that only is forbidden to them? Why, suddenly, this explosion of rage against us over "forbidden" images of the Prophet.
I have my own theories, and I bet you do, too. But for news media outlets to keep talking of "images of the Prophet are forbidden" as the only explanation is transparently stupid.
Putting on my cynics hat for a moment, the media love a good fight. And this "long war" or "war of civilizations" promises to be the big mother of all fights. Could last for decades.
It's going to be in their best interest to keep the heat turned up. Combine that with local grievances and local pipsqueaks making political power plays all over the region, and you've got a story. Better than that, you've got a genuine self-sustaining story.
Forgive my cynicism. I am certainly not saying that anyone in the media is purposefully agitating for conflict. But overall, the trend will be to continue to play up the conflict over the next 20-40 years. It's probably the beginning of a true world political system, with the modern countries taking the role of republicans and the fundamentalist Islamic groups taking the roles of democrats. (The analogy fails in depth, but I think you understand my point)
Another interesting thing is that IIRC, it's the slander of any recognized prophet -- not just Mohammed, but Jesus, Moses, Abraham, the whole lot -- that's considered kafir. Rather selectively enforced, much like most religious tenets...
It's all about globalization. When the words, music, movies, cartoons, books, and other cultural products (like, say, cartoons) of infidels like us stayed safely inside our own cultures, they could afford to ignore us. It doesn't work that way any more: if we say something, it's heard around the world. Our free speech threatens their theocracies, and the imams are only too aware of that. This is not the last time that muslims will demand we circumscribe our own speech, or else.
Which really makes it all the sadder that the media - the mainstream media, at least - has for the most part behaved like cringing dhimmis. What none of them seem to realize is that, if every newspaper and every TV station in every Western country published the cartoons, the riots would have burnt themselves out very quickly. It's one thing to put a fatwa on a handful of cartoonists and editors, quite another to do the same for every single media worker thw western world.
Still, I think time is on our side in this. It takes a lot of energy to riot. Drawing an offensive cartoon, not so much. And while they might be able to make bomb threats against newspaper buildings, attacking anonymous bloggers is quite a different matter. As ever, the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around in, and for that reason this the west will win this particular clash of civilizations, just as we've won all the previous ones.
What cartoon jihad has done is clarify things.
The West and Islam are in conflict, and will remain so until one or the other is destroyed or altered. Period.
Muslims demand (and threaten violence in various ways) that the West adhere to their rules for Mohammed. Muslims in Britain got Piglet banned from Government offices. Full tents for girls in school. Pork banned from school lunches. A pig statue in the Forest of Dean taken down. The Cross of St. George removed from British prisons (and proposed changes in the flag to remove the cross there as well).
Defact Sharia law already applies to a number of British cities, as well as cities in Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. This includes polygamy, honor killings, and the like (which are not prosecuted on the threat of violence).
Muslims are not content to order themselves in their own lands; their faith demands they engage in active jihad to forcibly convert the entire world. When you see in NYC Muslims holding up signs with the White House flying the Saudi Flag saying "Islam will Dominate" it's clarifying. As are "Freedom go to hell" and "God Bless Hitler" or Iran denying the Holocaust and threatening the US once again or demanding Israel be "removed" or they will destroy that nation, etc.
Muslims believe that through violence and intimidation and threats they can forcibly convert the West. Hence Cartoon Jihad and Iran's threats and Al Qaeda and the rest of the Islamic terrorists from Beslan to Bali.
Islam and Muslims cannot co-exist with the West as both are currently constructed. That's all there is too it. We shouldn't pretend otherwise. We either submit to their rules and convert, or fight.
JR wrote "Muslims believe that through violence and intimidation and threats they can forcibly convert the West."
Yes, they do. Further, they have about 1500 years of cultural background, law, and tradition of doing so. Think: the concept of conquering and islamicizing other societies is more deeply engrained in their culture than science or technology are ingrained in western society. How much faith in science and technology, in human rights, or anything else we now hold dear did Europe have in the year 500? or the year 1000? Darn little.
So, my little brain concludes that it is a lot more likely that the shallowly-rooted, demographically shrinking, recent culture will have a hard time standing up to the deeply-rooted, expanding, ancient culture. That's not to say I like the conclusion (I am a westerner, after all), but the logic seems clear.
As Bernard Louis once said, the west overran the rest of the world through superior force of arms, and while the west often forgets this, the rest of the world never does. Of course, that's a consequence of the scientific / industrial revolution starting in the West - but as the technology, and the weapons, get copied by the rest of the world, things will change.
Just something to brighten your morning ...
Why would they care so much about us committing a sin that only is forbidden to them?
When the Prophet is insulted, Islamic Law (according to Bernard Lewis ) distinguishes two situations:
1. The Non-Muslim Subject of the Muslim State, who is given legal protections and will likely be flogged and/or imprisoned.
2. The Muslim Subject of the Muslim State, for which the death sentence of apostasy may be appropriate.
What about such offenses in Non-Muslim states?
The cartoon jihad is part of a "struggle" to bring Islamic law to the West.
Jim Rockfored said: "Defacto Sharia law already applies to a number of British cities, as well as cities in Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. This includes polygamy, honor killings, and the like (which are not prosecuted on the threat of violence)."
Precisely. Introduce conditions in which even non-Muslims have to behave like they mouthed the dread words "There is no God but Allah....", and, the reasoning goes, those non-Muslims will stop resisting and simply convert. Current events in Europe aren't doing much to prove that reasoning wrong, sadly.
laocon said: "Of course, that's a consequence of the scientific / industrial revolution starting in the West - but as the technology, and the weapons, get copied by the rest of the world, things will change."
Ah, but the difference between us remains that we continue to be scientific/industrial. We keep on inventing new technologies, so that as soon as our competitors begin to the garner the advantages of the old ones, we've moved onto something else. With the exception of the terrorists - who have learned to use encrypted e-mail to communicate, the web to disseminate, and SIM chips to detonate - most of the Muslim world is still belatedly adjusting itself to the 20th century. Meanwhile, our entrepreneurs, corporations, educational institutions and, yes, our military push the envelope of the 21st. I'll wager our GRIN against their jihad any day.
As for demography ... well, I'm willing to concede that Europe might be f*****, but as bad as that is Western culture will continue to dominate in North America (and might even benefit from a massive influx of Europeans fleeing the Islamification of their homelands.) Taking a longer view, demography can change. Birth rates were exceedingly low in Germany in the aftermath of WWI - probably due to economic conditions - but they bounced back after WWII. The number of births in 2006 tells you how many 20-year-olds will be around in 2026, but it's less accurate about 2027 and probably completely off about 2037.
One more point: it's often said that the Muslims smell decadence in the West (the cringing of the media and the political class especially), and figure now is the perfect opportunity to take over. I don't think they're entirely wrong about the decadence, but I can't help but wonder - and this is just a thought - if our decentralized culture couldn't contain decadent parts (much of the contemporary Left) and, simultaneously, healthy parts (not necessarily the Right.) Most of the cultures that have gone decadent in the past were some combination of geographically localized, politically centralized, and culturally homogeneous, far more so than the modern West; when the rot set in, it was unavoidable. To put it in concrete terms: few would argue that there isn't decadence aplenty in, say, Los Angeles, but how many would argue the same about Texas?
"Muslims believe images of the Prophet are forbidden" doesn't appear to be wholly true, in the way that a Reuters reader would reasonably expect. Here is Zombie's collection of Muslim renderings of their prophet in art and literature (via Parapundit).
AMac,
I think that most of the muslims causing the trouble would respond that these old images made by muslims came at a time of religious laxity and corruption. The prohibition has been pretty much a constant going all the way back to the inception of the religion. If those folks feared idolatry from pictures of animals etc, then it would be much more so for their prophet. Even moderate muslims of today seem to be greatly offended by the images. I dont think that the "sins" of past muslims will have much effect on the orthodox view and wont do much to help the west in this case. I think the statement that most muslims of most times have believed it was against islam to depict their prophet is a true one and if the media shorthand that to the orthodox islamic statement that images of mohammed are forbidden, then I think they are pretty much correct.
They are testing the European spine and their own societies, learning the lessons from Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Jim,
You said,
"Muslims are not content to order themselves in their own lands; their faith demands they engage in active jihad to forcibly convert the entire world. "
This is not quite correct but its very very close.
muslims were instructed by their prophet to bring the whole world under the rule or domination of islam. He endorsed a host of tactics, some of them overt some of them a great deal more subtle and sneaky. This rule is intended to show all non-muslims the superiority of islam so that they will convert "freely"
What he did not command them to do was to force the conversion of the People of the Book. We are the only ones exempt from the "convert or die" so-called choice that is no choice given to so-called pagans like the Hindus. Yet we are also given a choice that is no choice at all. mohammed commanded his followers to fight whomever resisted their rule. So Christians and Jews in their cities and nations were given the choice to die or live under islamic rule as Christians and Jews. After submitting either by "choice" or by force to islamic rule, then these people were subject to discrimination that encouraged the nominal among them to convert to islam for the advantages of full citizenship. Meanwhile, the truly devoted of these faiths, in particular Christianity, were prevented from growing their faiths and the laws were such that in everyway Christians and Jews looked like pitiful, weak, losers compared to muslims. Not many human beings have the stomach to stay with a group of losers. Its one of humanities fatal attractions to gravitate towards those who are successful. Before too long, these People of the Book, who were not supposed to be coerced to convert had converted one by one under much more subtle pressure to be a part of the winners and rulers group.
The first step to this "non-coercive" way of freely converting non-muslims is to establish islamic rule where muslims make the rules. This can happen overtly or as in the current case through much more sneaky means like using our own tolerance against us (they are actually quite proud of being able to snooker the West at our own game. They should be ashamed). Of course we know that noone could convert freely under the rule of any faith that establishes a religious class system. But they dont and are in total denial of the fact.
Its a subtle disctinction but if you are debating with muslims, you will get no respect for your views if you get something like this even a little wrong. We cant penetrate their denial if we give them any cause to write us off as uninformed.
As much as I hate to say it, maybe the French were correct last Fall when they clamped down on the press coverage of the car burning riots. It could possibly be that this display will continue until the press stops its breathless coverage.
It wouldn't be the first time that press coverage fed the flames of protest.
I Believe That Tobacco is SACRED
I have been following recent news with great interest and I feel that in the spirit of equal opportunity, I as a descendant of the Ani-Yun-Wi-Ya. (Total of all real people) should point out that I have found the lack of respect and Honor accorded the Sacred Herb of my Ancestors, highly offensive.Since it appears that in some quarters decisions have been made to avoid offending other religions even to the extent of discarding basic Liberties and Freedoms then my Religion too should be accorded the same respect
Dan #13:
...if you are serious about having your religion accorded the respect it no doubt deserves, then you'd best start inciting your fellow Tobaccanists to riot and to threaten further violence against us infidels.
At least, I think that's the lesson here.
It's not so much that the prophet was depicted in a cartoon but that he was depicted in such a vile manner w a bomb in his turban. I believe that's what really offended Muslims. Although depicting the prophet is forbidden in Islam, it still happens in certain places where it's interpreted different, i.e. Iran and Iraq but there are no demonstrations against those countries that widely depict the prophet. The rioting has occured, however, bc of the offensive nature of the cartoon.
Furthermore, I also believe that it's misleading to take the grievances Muslims have against the west, namely the U.S. and the U.K. out of context. The cartoon was just a cherry on the cake. It blew the top off a laundry list of legitimate grievances. With all the invasions/occupations/imperialism waged against them, this just blew the top!
iPouya, that you choose to read and comment on a site means that the following points are hardly unfamiliar. Still.
Freedom of speach means that, necessarily, you will encounter particular speech that you may find offensive. It is absurd to argume that any of the 12 cartoons were as "vile" towards Mohammed as is routine fare in the Middle East towards the Jews. Or Christians for that matter. Or, that the 12's vileness compares meaningfully to the offense given in the West to gays, Republicans, evangelical Christians, Jesus, the Catholic Church, Democrats, hunters...
The inciteful Danish imams would hardly have bothered with spiking the genuine cartoons with fake ones if they disagreed with me.
All this is besides the point. Muslims remain free to get as offended as they wish.
The only question is: do Muslims have the right to express their offense through murder, rioting, threats of harm, and intimidation? The answer within the ummah seems to be, "yes." The West's answer seems to be, "if you must."