'Taqiyya' to the Sounds of 'Tequila'

Ancient History, Islam, Media

The Greek philosophers believed that to be mired in self-contradiction was to be “less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.”

How would they have characterized the rampaging Muslim mobs, who’ve been acting as terrorists to protest that their prophet Muhammad was depicted as a terrorist.

If that isn’t the ultimate performative contradiction, I don’t know what is. To embody a contradiction is indeed a lowly state of being.

Here is the story of the deception to the sounds of a familiar ditty. It all began with a scheming Imam and ended in the riots that rive the Muslim world as I write. It errs in blaming the one for the sins of the many, but is otherwise quite neat.
A doff of the hat to David Conway of CIVITAS for sending the thing along.

Update: It turns out that raging Muslims are more coherent than I gave them credit for; their deeds are in keeping with Muhammad, peace be upon him (it’s now mandatory to offer praise each time the prophet is mentioned). But let historian Srdja Trifkovic do the explaining.
Muslims the world over have demanded that “respect for Muhammad [be] restored.” “We want him to be described as the man he really was in history,” a Danish leader enjoined. So “in the spirit of multicultural tolerance and interfaith dialogue,” Trifkovic has obliged. Read his crash course on Muhammad’s monumental life’s work.

‘Taqiyya’ to the Sounds of ‘Tequila’

Ancient History, Islam, Media

The Greek philosophers believed that to be mired in self-contradiction was to be “less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.”

How would they have characterized the rampaging Muslim mobs, who’ve been acting as terrorists to protest that their prophet Muhammad was depicted as a terrorist.

If that isn’t the ultimate performative contradiction, I don’t know what is. To embody a contradiction is indeed a lowly state of being.

Here is the story of the deception to the sounds of a familiar ditty. It all began with a scheming Imam and ended in the riots that rive the Muslim world as I write. It errs in blaming the one for the sins of the many, but is otherwise quite neat.
A doff of the hat to David Conway of CIVITAS for sending the thing along.

Update: It turns out that raging Muslims are more coherent than I gave them credit for; their deeds are in keeping with Muhammad, peace be upon him (it’s now mandatory to offer praise each time the prophet is mentioned). But let historian Srdja Trifkovic do the explaining.
Muslims the world over have demanded that “respect for Muhammad [be] restored.” “We want him to be described as the man he really was in history,” a Danish leader enjoined. So “in the spirit of multicultural tolerance and interfaith dialogue,” Trifkovic has obliged. Read his crash course on Muhammad’s monumental life’s work.

The Cartoons and the Camel in the Room

Media, The West, The Zeitgeist

The commentariat’s response to the Danish cartoons that mocked Muhammad reminds me of the iconic scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Challenged to a duel by a scimitar-wielding enemy, Indiana Jones draws a pistol and dispatches the swordsman without further ado.
In my analogy, Indiana Jones, however, is the Muslim world. His showy opponent is the West, which has unleashed its penmen on rampaging Muslim mobs to convolute about the values of freedom of expression, enquiry, and conscience.
How have Muslims responded to these lofty disquisitions? As Indiana Jones did, lethally; by calling for the heads of the offenders. From Indonesia to Egypt they’ve kidnapped, killed, and set fire to embassies and missions, promising to visit a “holocaust” on those who pictorially depict or misspeak about Muhammad…

The complete column, The Cartoons and the Camel in the Room, is here. Comments are welcome.

Christopher Hitchens' Relativism & the Cartoon Controversy

Anti-Semitism, Christianity, Free Speech, Islam, Judaism & Jews

Christopher Hitchens’ cri de coeur over the Danish cartoon controversy fizzled somewhat due to his signature relativism with respect to the facts about the three faiths; it caused him to fudge important distinctions, without which clarity is impossible. One can disdain religion without losing sight of what separates Islam from the Judeo-Christian faiths.

Hitchens says Islam’s anti-Semitism has been borrowed from Christianity. He also mentions a rabbi who grounds his dislike for the Palestinians in scriptures (rather than in the actions of suicide killers and their supporters). These examples are supposed to show that all religions lead their faithful into latrines and lock them there forever.

Hitchens’ arguments, however, are weak. First, Islam is an innovator in anti-Semitism in its own right. For example, the Nazis did not originate the yellow cloth they tagged Jews with; the caliph who succeeded the Prophet Mohammed did. More fundamentally, he neglects to mention that Christianity has changed. Christian and Jewish holy texts, moreover, have been reinterpreted by the sages over the centuries; the Quran has not. Nor can it be, because devout Muslims believe it’s God’s eternal and unquestionable word to Muhammad. At least so deduced the greatest Christian theologian alive, Pope Benedict XVI.

Hitchens should know that one-case studies and spotty historical slates do not remotely equate with the groundswell of virulent, violent fundamentalism that grips and defines the Muslim world today. Contemporary Christianity and Judaism; Buddhism and Baha’ism are religions of peace. The same cannot be said of Islam.