(Reposted with minor edits from a discussion at Citizen Tom’s blog.)

The sole difference between mocking Christianity and Judaism and Buddhism and the Sikh faith and so on versus Islam is that all of those others won’t kill you for it, as a general thing. Islam deserves to be mocked until it grows up and/or weeds out the jihadist (and jihad-supporting) elements that make up too large a portion of its adherents now.



Islam has several categories of practitioners, it seems to me:

(A) Those who are nominally Muslims but don’t pay much attention to the faith’s requirements, as they are more completely assimilated into their non-Islamic home countries. They often make good neighbors and good citizens. These are a minority, but evidently a large one in many countries.  Tens of percent, in many cases. And generally, these are disinclined to (or cowed from) speaking up about what they might privately consider wrong actions by jihadists. The exceptions to this are rare, and many seeming exceptions are not; these are part of one of the groups below but masquerading as “moderate” Muslims.

(B) Those who are followers, supporting more or less the precepts of Shariah law, but not personally inclined to violence to enforce it, though they accept state or group violence to accomplish that same end. This represents a majority of Muslims world-wide, and this thinking is incompatible with the Constitutional republic and rule of secular law in the United States. Despite Egypt’s close brush with complete jihadist rule in the last few years, majorities in that country still support punishment for leaving Islam, punishment for blasphemy, and that the country must be ruled by Shariah law.

(C) Those who actively promote, encourage, train or knowingly financially support jihadist activity against those who are not followers of their brand of Islam. Not a very large number, but extremely influential. Most of the “500 Most Prominent Muslim Thinkers of the World” produced by the Saudi religious authorities fall into this category. As noted above, some of these (such as Imam Faisal Rauf of “Ground Zero Mosque” fame) present themselves to Western audiences as “moderates” who proclaim that Islam is peaceful and Shariah is compatible with the West (he even did so in a TED talk, piling lie upon lie), while telling Arabic audiences of their successes in advancing the cause of subjugating the infidels.

(D) Active jihadists themselves. Some are in governments, most operate separately and act for the day that they will bring the rest of the world under their rule. Currently, ISIS is the world’s largest D-cell, but every Muslim Brotherhood franchise from Hamas to ISIS to CAIR to al Qaeda to Hezbollah to Muslim Students Association to Students for Palestine is operated by C and D leaders promoting the cause of jihad.

The latter two categories are variously guessed to be around 10% or so of the world’s Muslim population, with a blend from one to the other primarily controlled by personal courage and opportunity.

The Missing Reformation

One group missing from the list, and almost completely missing in practice, are those who are actually devout observant Muslims who nevertheless deny the Qur’an and al-Hadith invocations of Shariah law and jihad. They can only do so through pretending that a reformation of Islam away from violence has already taken place.

Such a reformation would be very difficult for this religion/political system (Islam is both). This is  because of the belief by its adherents that the Qur’an is the direct, letter-perfect dictation of Allah through the Angel Gabriel (<i>Jabreel</i> in Arabic) and that the traditions in al-Hadith are the validated words and actions of the world’s only Perfect Man and Holy Example for All Muslims and All the World.

Two decades ago, in the 1990s, there were a number of clerics truly advocating peaceful coexistence and exactly the needed reformation of the faith. These were slaughtered, in a series of assassinations spanning the Middle East and extending to Western and Asian countries as well. Now, few would dare speak of such a thing.

You see, it’s very important not to be a “provocateur” who might cause “offense.”

Contested Art

Of course, if you are willing to kill people over such things, you can be as offensive to others as you wish.

One commenter compared Pamela Geller’s contest to a hypothetical one held by Muslims:

a cartoon-drawing contest of Muhammed is the Islamic cultural equivalent of a contest among Muslims to create pornographic images of the Virgin Mary ardently welcoming the Sixth Fleet during a port call.

In fact, the US National Endowment for the Arts would fund such a thing, and has already funded works similarly vile with regard to the Virgin Mary.

But this is hardly a hypothetical; such contests already exist. Islamic countries, since Islamic tradition actually includes the character of Mary (as Miriam), are more inclined to hold contests for cartoons depicting Jews (and Westerners in general) as pigs, apes, snakes, octopuses, and other creatures engaged in various evil activities. Oh, and the Holocaust, to such Islamic authorities, never happened.

Note that current contests are being portrayed as being “in response to the offensive Charlie Hebdo works” — which is chronologically incorrect, as the contests have been running for many years. This one is from 2006.


Many suggest that Pamela Geller and her American Freedom Defense Institute are “responsible” for the jihadist attack on the contest that resulted in two jihadists being killed. I sort of agree, but not in the way they mean:

We in the United States with our Constitutionally protected right of free speech are responsible for mocking Islam, for forcing it to mature or die, in order to protect the many millions living under jihadist rule that have no such choice. Merely having such protected rights is anathema to jihadists, and we (and to a lesser extent, Europeans and Asians and others who must brave various degrees of laws against blasphemy) must stand up for these subjugated people and stand against the jihadists.

We don’t all have to draw such cartoons, but we all need to stand against these outraged, murderous primitives and weaken them by repetition, demonstrating their ultimate powerlessness to control the world, until those they directly suppress can rise up and eject them from their societies.

Here, then, is the winning contest entry by Bosch Fawstin. To me, it strikes exactly the right tone:


===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  • Bart

    Cartoons die we veel te weinig zien