Infinite Monkeys

Hugh Hewitt: Don't Squeeze the Sharia

Hugh Hewitt spent a good chunk of his airtime today backing up his opinion that the infamous Danish cartoons were "vulgar", "stupid", and "an unnecessary affront", while simultaneously condemning the steady stream of death threats that have flowed out in response. His reasoning is that the cartoons were deliberately aimed at offending the greater Muslim population, and as such, foolishly risk expanding the scope of the War on Terror to a generalized clash of civilizations.

While I agree wholeheartedly that the death threats demand condemnation, on the subject of the cartoons themselves Hugh is way off. He's so concerned that the Middle Eastern predicament doesn't become "The West vs. Islam," that he effectively tosses Denmark's freedom of expression under the bus. Ironically enough, he proves the Danes' point in the process.

Hugh's major error is in deliberately ignoring the intent of the cartoons. Their purpose was neither to offend Muslims nor to denigrate Islam, but to determine whether controversial views can still be aired in Denmark without fear of massive reprisal. It is clear from the reaction of some Muslims -- most importantly the heads of various Middle Eastern states -- that they can not.

That the illustrators' goal was not specifically to offend should be obvious just from looking at the images. Of the twelve cartoons, only one of them -- the sketch of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban -- is clearly aimed at equating Islam with terrorism. One or two more poke fun at certain aspects of Islam. As to the rest, you'd have to have your cheeks clenched pretty tightly to believe that they were intended to provoke anger.

And what about that sketch of the Prophet with the explosive headwear? It certainly seems to suggest that the teachings of Muhammad are responsible, at least indirectly, for acts of violence and terrorism. Might that offend some Muslims? You betcha. If a similar accusation was launched against Christians -- and it has been, many times -- some of them would likely be offended too.

And in both cases, it would be a valid viewpoint worthy of debate and analysis; the kind of topic, I would argue, that we all should be discussing in order to better understand the players in this conflict, not to mention the stakes. If the press loses its freedom to raise such topics, we're all going to be in some deep doo doo.

The Jyllands-Posten's little experiment was not a stupid, irresponsible act of petty bigotry, but a necessary attempt at bringing to light hugely important realities about the growing influence of Islam in the Western world. It has opened a lot of eyes that were previously squeezed tightly shut in Europe and the rest of the West. It is exactly the sort of thing that a newspaper's editorial clout should be used for, and I would hope that my local newspaper would have cojones big enough to do the same. (It wouldn't.)

As to whether we stand at the brink of a clash of civilizations, I honestly don't know. Certainly nobody in the West wants that -- nobody worth mentioning, anyway -- and I'd wager that the vast majority of people in the Muslim world feel the same. If a war of ideals is to be avoided, however, then it's absolutely critical that Muslims recognize and learn to accept that most in the West do not subscribe to the sharia; that we jealously guard our freedom to flap our gums as we please, regardless of whether they wish to deny themselves the same.

If they can't, or won't, live with that, then clash we will. And no amount of ignoring the signs of that eventuality, or disparaging those who would bring it to light, is going to stop it.

As for me, I'm drinking Carlsberg tonight. Who wants one?

Posted by Poochucker at February 3, 2006 06:38 PM