In recent days, crowds of thousands have gathered throughout the Muslim world—burning European embassies, issuing threats, and even taking hostages—in protest over 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that were first published in a Danish newspaper last September. The problem is not merely that the cartoons were mildly derogatory. The furor primarily erupted over the fact that the Prophet had been depicted at all. Muslims consider any physical rendering of Muhammad to be an act of idolatry. And idolatry is punishable by death. Criticism of Muhammad or his teaching—which was also implicit in the cartoons—is considered blasphemy. As it turns out, blasphemy is also punishable by death. So pious Muslims have two reasons to “not accept less than a severing of the heads of those responsible,” as was recently elucidated by a preacher at the Al Omari mosque in Gaza.
The religious hysteria has not been confined to the “extremists” of the Muslim world. Seventeen Arab governments issued a joint statement of protest, calling for the punishment of those responsible. Pakistan’s parliament unanimously condemned the drawings as a “vicious, outrageous and provocative campaign” that has “hurt the faith and feelings of Muslims all over the world.” Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, while still seeking his nation’s entry into the European Union, nevertheless declared that the cartoons were an attack upon the “spiritual values” of Muslims everywhere. The leader of Lebanon’s governing Hezbollah faction observed that the whole episode could have been avoided if only the novelist Salman Rushdie had been properly slaughtered for writing “The Satanic Verses.”
Let us take stock of the moral intuitions now on display in the House of Islam: On Aug. 17, 2005, an Iraqi insurgent helped collect the injured survivors of a car bombing, rushed them to a hospital and then detonated his own bomb, murdering those who were already mortally wounded as well as the doctors and nurses struggling to save their lives. Where were the cries of outrage from the Muslim world? Religious sociopaths kill innocents by the hundreds in the capitols of Europe, blow up the offices of the U.N. and the Red Cross, purposefully annihilate crowds of children gathered to collect candy from U.S. soldiers on the streets of Baghdad, kidnap journalists, behead them, and the videos of their butchery become the most popular form of pornography in the Muslim world, and no one utters a word of protest because these atrocities have been perpetrated “in defense of Islam.” But draw a picture of the Prophet, and pious mobs convulse with pious rage. One could hardly ask for a better example of religious dogmatism and its pseudo-morality eclipsing basic, human goodness.
It is time we recognized—and obliged the Muslim world to recognize—that “Muslim extremism” is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism. The truth about Islam is as politically incorrect as it is terrifying: Islam is all fringe and no center. In Islam, we confront a civilization with an arrested history. It is as though a portal in time has opened, and the Christians of the 14th century are pouring into our world.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. The demographic trends are ominous: Given current birthrates, France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow. Throughout Western Europe, Muslim immigrants show little inclination to acquire the secular and civil values of their host countries, and yet exploit these values to the utmost—demanding tolerance for their backwardness, their misogyny, their anti-Semitism, and the genocidal hatred that is regularly preached in their mosques. Political correctness and fears of racism have rendered many secular Europeans incapable of opposing the terrifying religious commitments of the extremists in their midst. In an effort to appease the lunatic furor arising in the Muslim world in response to the publication of the Danish cartoons, many Western leaders have offered apologies for exercising the very freedoms that are constitutive of civil society in the 21st century. The U.S. and British governments have chastised Denmark and the other countries that published the cartoons for privileging freedom of speech over religious sensitivity. It is not often that one sees the most powerful countries on Earth achieve new depths of weakness, moral exhaustion and geopolitical stupidity with a single gesture. This was appeasement at its most abject.
The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. It is not at all clear how we should proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world, but deluding ourselves with euphemisms is not the answer. It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism. In confronting the religious literalism and ignorance of the Muslim world, we must appreciate how terrifyingly isolated Muslims have become in intellectual terms. The problem is especially acute in the Arab world. Consider: According to the United Nations’ Arab Human Development Reports, less than 2% of Arabs have access to the Internet. Arabs represent 5% of the world’s population and yet produce only 1% of the world’s books, most of them religious. In fact, Spain translates more books into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the ninth century.
Our press should report on the terrifying state of discourse in the Arab press, exposing the degree to which it is a tissue of lies, conspiracy theories and exhortations to recapture the glories of the seventh century. All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the Earth. Muslim moderates, wherever they are, must be given every tool necessary to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists. Otherwise, we will have to win some very terrible wars in the future. It is time we realized that the endgame for civilization is not political correctness. It is not respect for the abject religious certainties of the mob. It is reason.
This fragment of the Koran (Sura 33,
Verse 73-74) translates in part as
“...That God may chastise the
hypocrites, men and women alike,
and the idolaters, men and
women alike...”
the real questions are (1) when do you want to fight it - nuclear zone fires now, or what? and (2) don't you think this says more about people than Mohammed, ie, if you incinerate this mob, do you doubt that they will be replaced by a similar one? Eg, note the Pope's comments, and Pat Robertson's comments on these subjects. How much more tolerant of free expression do you think they're going to be? You REALLY want to know what people think about the 1st amendment, just tell your wife what's on your mind next time she asks if her pants make her ass look fat.
So let's take a smoke break here before we load up and move out, and see if we can't delay this, say until everybody dies of old age. Killing a lot of people is not my favorite thing, so let's put it to the back of the calendar.
There is nothing worse than a race war but unfortunately the Islam world is living in a theory of thought before the 1600th century. The question now is will they be able to education themselves so there is not a religious war (hint it will take 100 years) or will one side take he other back to the stoneage. For the PC crowd, how many of your relativs need to be killed, or how many American cities need to be nuked before you stop turning the other cheek (A Christian term, not an Islim term) before you feel it's OK to seattle this. Unfortunately I don't believe the choice is our's to make but will be forced upon us. It's a lose/lose situation IMHO.
if religion is the opiate of the people, why aren't the Mohammedean masses much more mellow?
Maybe religion is the Crank of the masses?
Or maybe just for cranks?
-- Modified on 2/9/2006 8:28:03 PM
Ya know, for once, Xiao, i think you've touched on something we may actually agree on.
The frivolity notwithstanding, perhaps this is not merely the opiate spoken of by Marx, but a prime example of the dynamics of religion as a mechanism of mass CONTROL.
Look athow this entire thing spread. It wasn't the newspaper orthe internet that did it, it was the holy roller bullshit exhortations from the Arabic governments (18 of them) that enflamed the masses. A classic example of manipulation of the masses using religion as the vehicle.
Perhaps now people will understand that Israel has never been anything but the red herring of the Holy Jihad against ALL Infidels. It is the basic tenet of Islam.
I'll try to be succient. You're right, and we can move to a higher order of abstraction here.
You can control people physically - usually by threats and applications of bodily harm which, done frequently enough and over a long enough time, cows a populace into submission. [See the entire history of mankind for suitable examples].
More economically, and less violently, you can control people emotionally and intellectually by manipulating the universe. of symbols and values important to the masses in a given culture at any moment. It seems that manipulating people's fears and manipulating peoples' hopes and ideals [and all the many subsidiary symbols and expressions which fall under those two headings] is the irreducible minimum.
In our society, we're manipulated by appeals to both our fears and our hopes. In less materially advanced cultures it seems that manipulating people's fears is often sufficient to do the trick.
And it doesn't matter whether this manipulation is of secular symbols and values [political ideology] or sacred symbols and values [religion]. It's two sides of the same coin methinks.
The malignant Mohammedeans this week have deinitely had their fears manipulated. And acted predictably. I wonder if there ever will come to pass a time when the leaders of these wretched masses attempt to manipulate their hopes and ideals. But in the end, does it do any good to break the shackles of religion only to jump right into the straightjacket of politics? Ah, I think my Catholic unhappiness is showing here.
See, the education was not, I hope, entirely wasted.
If you've not done so take a look at a slim but interesting book by Eric Hoffer "The True Believer."
Bonus Humor Time :
Q. The Pope, Cardinal Egan of NYCity, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the Chief Rabbi of Israel make a suicide pact and jump off the Seattle Space Needle. Who hits ground first?
A. Who gives a damn?!
Ecumenical enough for you?
PS. The opium reference also has interested me. It can be understood at least two ways -- one way as a substance which produces the pleaant narcotic effect which allows the user to forget the pains of existence, another way as a poison which debilitates and ultimately saps the strength of the user and renders him/her powerless in any phase of life. Any info on which, if either, sense Karl had in mind in that very famous quote of his? I sense the latter, but I'm sure others have more info on this that they can share.
