Why?

In response to my posts on the Muhammad-cartoon controversy, I received this email from "Muslim":

What was the point of making these pictures of our beloved prophet Muhammad peace be upon him?

In Islam we dont make pictures of any other prophets. We respect all prophets, Jesus, Moses, Abraham. In our religion, even if you made pictures of these prophets, it would be considered a big sin.

We respect all religions, yet why dont the people who drawed what they did respect ours?

Moreover, why not write about our prophet peace be upon him from true sources? if you really learn about this Prophet, you will see what a mercy he was to mankind.

Where to start? The point of these cartoons was not to insult your beloved prophet. In the Western world, we have a rich tradition of social and political commentary and criticism expressed through satirical and editorial cartoons. In this case, the artists are criticizing several disturbing aspects of the Islamic world. Terrorism in the name of Islam, justified and glorified by millions of Muslims worldwide, is a perfectly legitimate topic to criticize. The fact that terrorists justify their acts with the words of Muhammad means he is a legitimate target of criticism. We have seen the violent reactions to these cartoons. We have seen schoolchildren killed. We have seen people beheaded. We have seen planes flown into buildings. Would Muhammad approve? Or does the religion of peace condemn such outbursts? If so, where is the condemnation? Where are the millions of peaceful Muslims who should be outraged that people do this in the name of their religion? Are they outraged?

Pictures? Muslims are threatening death and slaughter over pictures. They are burning embassies over pictures. Can you see how Westerners may be slightly puzzled or shocked? Artwork depicting humans is considered fairly benign in the Western world. We do have a commandment that says we shall not worship any graven images but I don't think anyone is suggesting a drawing of Muhammad should be worshipped.

I think I'll have to call your bluff on "respect[ing] all religions." Islam has a horrible record regarding the respect of other religions, especially in the modern period. Christians face regular persecution throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Jews are virtual nonentities in Muslim nations and are certainly not allowed to worship openly. It is not Christians that are trying to impose religious law on everyone in northern Nigeria. It is not Christians that are committing genocide in the Sudan. In the Western world, you are free to practice any religion you see fit, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, or Scientology. You can have any nutjob beliefs you want and try to convince others of their divine inspiration as well. The Islamic world does not extend the same courtesy to any others. Until that happens, any suggestion that Islam respects all religions is either laughable ignorance or an outright lie.

Muhammad may have been a wonderful man but as long as Muslims eagerly kill people in his name, Westerners will have a hard time believing that. Islam has made many contributions to world civilization in the past. Unfortunately, it seems to have become stagnant over the last several hundred years. One of the strengths of Christianity, Judaism, and Western society in general is an ability to question and criticize ourselves. For those that believe in God, that can often strengthen our faith. For everyone, that can lead to a better society. We do not see the same thing in Islam.

The galling hypocrisy shown in the photos of the protest outside the Danish embassy in London is that while Muslims are free to protest and even condemn their governments in the Western world, they could never do the same thing in the Islamic world.

The Controversial Cartoons

Here they are, the cartoons that are causing so much trouble all over the world right now. Are they really that offensive? Meanwhile, Tony Blair responds to an Australian paper's characterization of the issue as a clash between civilizations saying, "No, that would require two civilizations."

Abu Bombza

For more complete coverage of the Muhammad-cartoon controversy, I would suggest checking out Michelle Malkin's site. Neil Boortz also has a good column on the subject.

Julian Bond, Race-Baiting Huckster

In a speech last night NAACP Chairman Julian Bond compared Republicans to Nazis and called Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell "token" blacks. He once again compared Republican policies to the Taliban continuing a theme he's expounded on since the beginning of the Bush administration. Along with demeaning those who suffered under Nazi Germany or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Bond also continues to make the case that Republicans should not take black "leadership" in America very seriously. The "Nazi", "Taliban", and "token" rhetoric only further diminishes any interest Republicans may have in whatever points "civil rights" organizations are trying to explain. You want to have a dialogue with a Republican? Good luck if you start off by calling him a Nazi.

Furthermore, calling Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell "tokens" is a sign of willful ignorance, incompetence, or an unskillful attempt at labeling them as race-traitors. I think we can assume that Bond did not rise to NAACP Chairman through ignorance or incompetence so it must be something else. The main point that lies behind Bond's assertion is that any black American that does not adhere to the Democratic or NAACP line is a traitor to the black race and a willing pawn of racist Republicans. Without going into why the Republican agenda is not racist (which would take much more space and time than I care to take right now), Bond also ignores the approach that President Bush has had toward minorities in his administration. Not only has Bush appointed more minorities and women to federal positions, he has appointed more to more significant positions than any of his predecessors, including President Clinton. Officials such as Rice, Powell, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were not chosen because they were minorities, they were chosen because they were highly qualified individuals who share a common political philosophy with the President.

Chairman Bond is simply upset that any black would dare to disagree with the NAACP. Were the NAACP to foster discussion between blacks of differing political persuasions, black Americans would exercise much more political power in the United States. As it is today, civil rights "leaders" such as Bond, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson have much vested interest in keeping the vast majority of blacks in the pocket of the Democrats. The party keeping blacks on the plantation is the one that takes 90% of the black vote for granted.

More on Muhammad

Praise Allah that some people in Europe are willing to stand up to Muslim reactionary pressure. Our rights to express satire and criticism (in the case the most explicit being the drawing of Muhammad wearing a bomb as a turban) cannot be sacrificed on the altar of religious sensitivities, especially those of a religion that is intolerant of others. As Germany's Die Welt says, "There is no right to be shielded from satire in the West." There shouldn't be in the East either.

To see the cartoons that have caused such outrage, click here.