With the current furore hotting up against Europe by enraged Muslims worldwide over the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in several more newspapers - first in Denmark, and now in France (whose editor has been sacked for doing so), Spain, Germany, Italy and Holland - we have just heard that our capital city’s national daily newspaper plans to do the same in tomorrow morning’s issue. The editor already knows it is a risky move, the small percentage of the population who are Muslim having threatened that there will be consequences and reprisals.

Last month I posted an entry “Here We Go Again” concerning the special treatment that Christianity got in the way of ridicule and misrepresentation, with the pearls of believers being trodden into the mud. Some Christians had protested vehemently about the TV show “The Book of Daniel” created by Jack Kenny, and I asked how it was that political correctness did not work in favour of defending the Christian minority when it would seem to do so all other minorities. Would Jack Kenny dare to create a show doing the same to Islam, or would his head soon depart from his shoulders? The show was withdrawn after only three episodes, there not being enough interest to keep it running.

As a personal comment, I admit that I would not have considered drawing any such cartoons myself, not even now - no more so than I would have encouraged Jack Kenny to portray Christianity as he did either. But neither do I see these two actions as entirely equal to each other for reasons I mention below. Where my reservations occur is that Islam considers images of Muhammad an act of idolatry, and while it can be said that I will write the truth so why not draw the truth, and that it may seem rather precious to show respect where little may be deserved, I do respect the same sentiment in the Amish who will not draw faces on the dolls of their daughters. The bottom line is that I do not seek to give offence although should offence be taken when the action was justified, it may well be that the other has the work of reconciliation to consider. That is something about me, not anything about Islam.

The blogosphere is now spreading these cartoons around like crazy, and the Muslim reaction is incredible. Is there a difference in these situations - the Jack Kenny portrayal of Christianity, and the cartoons of Muhammad? Yes, I think that there is.

Those cartoons that I have seen so far are really nothing but mild in their portrayal of the prophet of Islam - the original ones published in Denmark. They say nothing at all about him that Muslims do not already say about him themselves. It says nothing about Islam that Muslims do not practice that is Islam. In short, they are for the most part objectively true representations. On the other hand, Jack Kenny’s portrayal of Christianity was not a true representation. It was a mockery and seriously lacked any resemblance to truth. Mulims do not like the caricatures, but they will readily worship the same aspects of their prophet as penned in the sketches.

There is another big difference to consider. What kind of reaction resulted in both cases? Compare the small amount of protest by a small number of Christians to the massive and amazingly excessive reaction of Islam where death threats have been issued, flags burned, apologies demanded and punishments requested, ambassadors (Libya and Saudi Arabia) withdrawn from Copenhagon, angry mob beatings, boycotts, a fatwa issued, and numerous diplomatic protests including to the United Nations itself.

Islam will not tolerate crticism, cannot stomach satire, and can laugh off nothing that it perceives as occurring against it. Humour is out. But in the west, this is not just about humour - it is the far more serious matter of holding on to the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech surely must allow the freedom to criticize, to annoy, ridicule and even offend. There will always be some who object to something another has said, but except where the laws of libel and slander can be used to moderate such expression, this is considered a right that we need to defend as part of our culture. There are also laws against reactions that are excessive such as death threats and damage to property and person.

The really positive thing about this whole furore, and an outcome that is just what was needed, is that it appears that the west is now finally waking up to just what is involved by the encroachment of Islam. At last we have a situation where it becomes irrational and blind to approve the notion that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and that it has merely been hi-jacked by the likes of OBL, al Qaeda and the Hamas, etc, who make it appear to be something terrible that it is not. The hue and cry comes from ordinary Muslims everywhere. They are forgoing any practise of taqiyya and demonstrating just how intolerant and violent is Islam when a slight is perceived. This is the general reaction of all Muslims, not just a few who might be called radical. The real colours of true Islam are showing for all to see. So do we want to lose our freedoms for which our fathers and grandfathers fought to protect in the two world wars of the last century? Surely we don’t. But if we are not to say a word supposedly against Muhammad or Islam, then we are already losing those freedoms.

Now I am wondering what is going to happen in this country after tomorrow. Our newspaper editor knows very well that he is taking a risk. But he is taking a stand, and what worse things may happen if he doesn’t do that? I congratulate him on taking a stand for our freedom.

4 February:

The Wellington Dominion Post - Cartoons ‘test of Islamic tolerance’

The Wellington Dominion Post - Danish cartoons in NZ media raise concerns over trade risk

The Wellington Dominion Post - Editorial
The editorial expresses my own position well.

No cartoons of Muhammad are shown anywhere on this site, or on the sites linked to above.