My liberal wife and father take some issue with my position on the recent “unpleasantness” surrounding the publication of cartoons featuring unflattering images of Mohammed. The issue is not whether it was rude or disrespectful to render an image of Mohammed contrary to the alleged tenets of Islamic faith (although images have been created countless times over the centuries, including in the U.S. Supreme Court building). The issue is about the freedom to do so, and freedom of expression is one of the pillars of Western civilization. Perhaps my limited abilities as a writer prevented me from adequately articulating this point. Thankfully, Daniel Pipes precisely captures my thoughts in this regard:

The key issue at stake in the battle over the 12 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 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?

***

The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. The Danish editor who published the cartoons, Flemming Rose, explained that if Muslims insist “that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos…they’re asking for my submission.”

Precisely.

Via PowerLine

Comments (11) | Permalink