Anderson should have taken his own advice and looked into the cartoonists and editors he claimed had no motivation other than to aggravate Muslims. He might have found some insight in the editorial by Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor, who explained the newspaper’s reasons for publishing the cartoons. “Modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims,” Rose argued. “They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where one must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule.
“It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at,” he continued, “and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. . . . We are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him.”
By the time the twelve cartoons had circulated widely—along with two fabricated, deliberately incendiary images depicting Muhammad with a pig’s snout and a dog mounting a Muslim bowed in prayer—the newspaper’s editors and cartoonists were overwhelmed with death threats. Many were forced into hiding, and a few cartoonists still require twenty-four-hour police protection to this day.
Rose later explained that he didn’t believe at first that publishing the illustrations had anything to do with traditional freedom of speech. “I said that this act was about self-censorship, not free speech,” he told Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Quarterly. “Free speech is on the books; we have the law, and nobody as yet has thought of rewriting it. This changed when the death threats were issued; it became an issue of the sharia trumping the fundamental right of free speech.”
That fundamental right has been trampled even further in the years since. The Charlie Hebdo massacre helped cement the media’s new ethos of self-censorship and cowardice. Jyllands-Posten provided a sadly ironic coda to that horrific day with another editorial—this time explaining why the newspaper would not republish any cartoons or illustrations.
“We have lived with the fear of a terrorist attack for nine years, and yes, that is the explanation why we do not reprint the cartoons, whether it be our own or Charlie Hebdo’s,” Jyllands-Posten’s editors admitted. “We are also aware that we therefore bow to violence and intimidation . . . it shows that violence works.”
Islam apologists go to great lengths to attempt to disconnect these acts of violence from Islamic doctrine; to present them as something unrelated to the religion’s core tenets. University of Michigan professor Christiane Gruber wrote in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks that there was actually no ban on using Muhammad’s image in Islam. She cited a number of examples of Muhammad’s image being used in the past and claimed there was no justification in the Quran or elsewhere in Islamic law to support such a ban.
Widening the lens, others argue that Islam actually welcomes and protects free speech, making the act of killing someone who offends the religion distinctly un-Islamic. Qasim Rashid, a lawyer and author, condemned the Paris attacks and noted in a USA Today op-ed that the Quran “promotes independent thought” and that “Islam champions free speech.” He even provided verses from the Quran in support, claiming that instead of violence, Muslims are encouraged to exercise “respectful disagreement.” For instance, he cited Sura 5:9, which reminds believers to “let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice.”
Ibrahim Hooper, the national spokesman for CAIR, wrote that “Islamic traditions include a number of instances of the prophet having the opportunity to strike back at those who attacked him, but refraining from doing so.”
Russell Brand, the alleged comedian who likes to generate publicity by ignorantly charging into political debates, offered an even less informed argument, asking in disbelief, “How can any spiritual scripture be used as justification for mass murder?” He maintained that the Charlie Hebdo killers “do not represent Islam any more than George Bush, Tony Blair and Halliburton”—invoking the war in Iraq—“represented Christianity.”
Muslims and others understandably want to separate these attacks from mainstream Islam. You can either take their word for it, or you can do the research and look into Islamic law and teachings for yourself. Among the things you will find: an established tradition that prohibits use of the prophet’s image and constrictions on free speech, especially when the prophet is involved.
An Islamic text known as the Ash-Shifa, by Qadi Iyad—described by its current publisher as “perhaps the most frequently used and commented upon handbook in which the Prophet’s life, his qualities and his miracles are described in every detail”—is very specific about what must be done with those who disrespect Muhammad:
Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen [religion] or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgment regarding such a person is the same as the judgment against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgment extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.
In the next section, the Ash-Shifa provides succinct instruction from al-Husayn Ibn Ali, son of the fourth caliph and grandson of the prophet through Muhammad’s daughter Fatima. According to al-Husayn Ibn Ali, Muhammad said: “Whoever curses a Prophet, kill him. Whoever curses my Companions, beat him.” Qadi Iyad’s writings clearly justify, and go on to establish scholarly consensus for, violence against anyone who exercises their free speech in a way derogatory toward Muhammad.
There is no room for compromise whatsoever when it comes to the honor or dignity of the prophet Muhammad. This also applies to depicting his image, according to modern Islamic scholar Azzam Tamimi: “The Koran itself doesn’t say anything, but it is accepted by all Islamic authorities that the Prophet Muhammad and all the other prophets cannot be drawn and cannot be produced in pictures because they are, according to Islamic faith, infallible individuals, role models and therefore should not be presented in any manner that might cause disrespect for them.”
Another modern cleric, Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, presented the issue in even simpler terms: “Islam in general specifically forbids the usage of imagery, and when it comes to depicting the messenger Muhammad, peace be upon him, that prohibition becomes even more relevant: we are not allowed to depict him in any shape, any way or form.”
When the creators of the animated TV comedy series South Park sought to depict an image of Muhammad in an episode in 2006, the mere suggestion sparked an outcry among Muslim groups. A radical Muslim organization issued a death threat, saying that the show’s creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, would be murdered like Theo van Gogh, who was killed in 2004 after producing a documentary on the mistreatment of women in Islamic societies.
The threats against the South Park creators included lines from a sermon by al-Qaeda imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who said that anyone defaming Muhammad should be murdered: “Harming Allah and his messenger is a reason to encourage Muslims to kill whoever does that.”
Executives at the Comedy Central network, which produced the show, panicked. Muslims all over the world had rioted after what they considered an insulting depiction of the prophet appeared in a Danish newspaper. The executives feared similar reprisals.
The controversy baffled South Park’s creators. This, after all, was a program that regularly offended Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and many others. “We can do whatever we want to Jesus, and we have,” said creator Matt Stone. “We’ve had him say bad words. We’ve had him shoot a gun. We’ve had him kill people. We can do whatever we want. But Mohammed,
we couldn’t just show a simple image.”
The executives at Comedy Central folded. Instead of depicting Muhammad in the episode, South Park ran a black screen that read “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network.”
The South Park guys rejected claims that the network was simply being tolerant to Muslims. “No, you’re not,” Stone responded in an interview with ABC News. “You’re afraid of getting blown up. That’s what you’re afraid of. Comedy Central copped to that, you know: ‘We’re afraid of getting blown up.’ ”
Under the Islamic idea of free speech, some things simply cannot be discussed, well, freely. This is explained by renowned sharia scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who maintains that “Islam stresses the principle of freedom”—but with a catch. “[T]his freedom is guaranteed on the condition that religion should not be toyed with, and people’s honor and dignity should not be transgressed upon.”
A 2012 Pew Research Center analysis found that nearly a quarter of the world’s countries and territories—many in the Muslim world—have antiblasphemy laws or policies on the books. As the report noted, “The legal punishments for such transgressions vary from fines to death.” A list of those countries includes Islamic nations such as Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. And as we detail in other sections of this book, many Islamic societies certainly don’t allow free expression for women, non-Muslims, or gays.
Some of these blasphemy cases make headlines internationally. In 2013, a blogger in Tunisia was jailed for “insulting Islam.” The following year in Pakistan a popular TV station was attacked by the government for “blasphemy” for playing a song that was considered offensive to the Muslim faith. As Reuters reported, “Blasphemy carries the death penalty in Pakistan but is not defined by law; anyone who says their religious feelings have been hurt for any reason can file a case.”
Even more disturbing is that many countries, including the United States, are trying to make Islam’s narrow version of free speech part of international law. In an example of the power of the Islamic agenda, and of the eagerness of the American political establishment to go along in the spirit of “cooperation,” Muslim countries have succeeded in persuading the United Nations to pass a resolution that seeks to “criminalize” certain types of speech that might offend Islam. This is part of a long-standing effort by Muslim leaders to “have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia and to call upon all states to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishment” (emphasis added).
In March 2011, these apologists began to get their wish. The United Nations Human Rights Council passed Resolution 16/18, which encourages countries “to foster a domestic environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect” by, among other things, “[a]dopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”
The seemingly innocuous resolution was pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a group consisting of fifty-seven Muslim nations, and enthusiastically supported by the United States. Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, called it “an important statement that must be followed by sustained commitment.”
Of course, the entire purpose of this resolution was not to protect Christians or Jews being persecuted in the Muslim world, but to censor anyone from daring to offend Islam.
Clinton admitted as much on July 15, 2011, when she traveled to Turkey to meet with the secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoğlu. There, standing with Islamic leaders, she pledged to help the OIC pass the resolution in the UN and “to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to silence Americans who don’t toe the line.
The OIC secretary-general himself told a French television station that he was in favor of stopping the publication of Muhammad cartoons, and that those who continue to do so will face the consequences. “If you don’t respect the feelings of one-and-[a-] half billion people, and if you don’t feel yourself responsible not to insult them,” he said, “then we have a problem.” Failure to avoid criticism of the prophet, he went on to add, would lead to demonstrations and violence.
The OIC’s demands have real international implications. “Not shadowy extremists but representatives of actual governments—nearly 60, in fact—have demanded that Western nations suppress speech that casts Islam in a bad light,” notes Jeremy Rabkin, a professor at the George Mason University School of Law.
But the United States, under the Obama administration, seems to be firmly on board with this idea. After all, our country’s top diplomat, acting in an official capacity, went to a foreign land and vowed to foreign leaders that the United States government would use extralegal practices to shame and intimidate American citizens to stop them from exercising what should be their constitutional First Amendment right to free speech. The repercussions from this are only just beginning to be felt.
According to at least one survey, American Muslims have similarly restrictive views, placing religious restrictions above their adopted country’s constitutional protections. When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?” 58 percent of U.S. Muslims surveyed replied, “No.”
Of course, it’s easy to be a fan of free speech and the First Amendment when people say things you agree with. It’s much harder when you try to imagine upholding the right of someone to say the most offensive thing imaginable to you. And that is the entire point. The depictions of Muhammad may well be offensive to some, just as putting Christ in urine and calling it “art” may be offensive to others.
I may not like protests at soldiers’ funerals or the fact that some in the media openly mock my Mormon religion—but I will stand up for their right to do it.
When we kowtow to anyone or anything and hold it up as being so sacred that it is above reproach, we’ve not only lost our spines; we’ve lost our freedom.
PART THREE
What Can Be Done
* * *
* * *
“Truth advances, & error recedes step by step only; and to do to our fellow-men the most good in our power, we must lead where we can, follow where we cannot, and still go with them, watching always the favorable moment for helping them to another step.”
—Thomas Jefferson, 1814
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of gay marriage. In the United States, this led to an outcry among those disagreeing with the decision. In the Middle East, it led to butchery.
Members of ISIS threw homosexuals off the roof of a building. On social media, they even used the hash tag “#Love Wins” to mock the Court’s decision.
That same month, ISIS put other victims in a steel cage and lowered them into a pool of water. Cameras were attached to the cage so that a global audience could watch these “infidels” suffer a horrific death as the water rose to the roof the cage, drowning those inside.
Still another set of victims had wires put around their necks, so a video camera could record their heads being blown off.
None of these shocking forms of murder is going to make most of the world care, and here’s why: We’ve been deceived. We’ve been rendered blind. We’ve been trained by phony politicians in Washington to focus on bogus “injustices” on the home front—the so-called wars on women or against gays.
There is a war against women going on, to be sure. There is a war against gays under way. But these wars are not here in America. They are over there. They are in the Muslim world. But we don’t hear Lena Dunham or George Takei talking about that.
Try to lecture a gay man in Iran—if one dared to surface—about American “intolerance” to homosexuals and he’d laugh at you. Tell a Yazidi refugee about the “plight” of American women being denied birth control and she’d scoff at you. The petty nonsense we preoccupy ourselves with in America is lau
ghable. Even worse, it’s dangerous.
There simply is no comparison.
Real injustices are happening right now—in plain view—but we can’t see them, since so many contrived, phony injustices are constantly placed in our way.
We have to start over. We have to get back to basics. We have to relearn how to become strong men and women. Strong in faith. Strong in values and principles.
We have to reset our own priorities. And then lead others to the light.
Jihad’s cost to civilization is incalculable. Over the centuries Muslim armies have burned libraries, razed cities, and conquered large swaths of the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Europe. They have enslaved, starved, and massacred millions of men, women, and children—all in the name of Islam.
As we’ve seen, the jihadists are not distorting their religion. They believe they’re acting in accordance with their faith and they can cite chapter and verse to justify every beheading, crucifixion, act of vandalism, and degradation of the “infidels” who happen to get in their way.
Our elected leaders often refuse to acknowledge these facts. President Obama says our enemies are “people who have perverted Islam.” President George W. Bush said that al-Qaeda terrorists were “traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.”
Their reticence is understandable in some ways. The Bush administration wanted to head off accusations that the United States was at war with Islam, and by extension more than 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide. President Bush, in fact, often described the War on Terror as “a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for” and as “a war against evil, not against Islam.”