Comic Depictions of Mohammed: Knowing When to Hold and When to Fold

posted at 1:56 pm on April 24, 2010 by
[ Terrorist Attacks ]   

Did you hear the latest knee-slapper about Moses? Actually, I don’t have a joke about Moses to share, though if I did and chose to, I wouldn’t need to go into hiding. If the joke were sufficiently tasteless or insulting, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League might issue a statement. Beyond that I know of no organized source or form of ritual retribution I would summarily face for my sacrilege. I wouldn’t need to live in mortal fear that some rabbi would assign a price to my head, instructing his congregants to hunt me down, machete in hand. That is because in my religion—and I suspect in yours—that just isn’t how things are done.

It’s not how they should be done in any religion, but sadly that just isn’t the world we live in.

Much has been written in recent days on the pickle “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone put themselves in by depicting (or rather not depicting by dressing him in a bear costume) the prophet Mohammed in an episode of their popular cartoon series. By now, the absurdly over-the-top reaction of a New York-based jihadist group has been too ubiquitously documented to require reprise here.

Much of what I’ve seen in commentaries adopts the same point of view as an editorial in today’s New York Post titled “Cowardly Central.” The bottom line of the editorial is summed up in a single, closing sentence: “And until the West decides—culturally and collectively—not to take it any longer, it’s only going to get worse.”

The general point is hard to dispute. Behind it is the attitude—in a very real sense it was a warning—that we Americans conveyed in the days and weeks after 9/11 by flying the American flag and displaying posters showing Old Glory and carrying the legend “These colors don’t run.”

But there is an important distinction between that situation and this one. It is one thing to stand tall and hang tough as a nation. It is quite another to do the same when you as an individual have been singled out and have a bounty on your head.

Before you exception me your exceptions, understand: I agree with the general tenet that if you give the islamist cretins an inch, they’ll take a mile, and that we should not tolerate their threats, which are little more in the end than thinly veiled excuses to kill more of us “non-believers.” They certainly needed no provocation to wantonly murder 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, and we now know from another headline this morning that they will keep on trying with every last breath in their being.

That eventuality—a day when the last of these monstrous miscreants takes his last breath—is something to be devoutly wished for. But until it arrives, we need to do what it takes to survive—both en masse and as individuals. If that means we resist depicting their prophet, so be it. It’s a small sacrifice to make it if means living to fight another day.

It is a truism of survival that under threatening circumstances it is important first and foremost to keep you head. At this critical juncture in the lives of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, let us all pray that they are able to keep theirs.

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can also reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

With all due respect, Howard: what??!!

thebrokenrattle on April 24, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Submission.

hillbillyjim on April 24, 2010 at 2:41 PM

At this critical juncture in the lives of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, let us all pray that they are able to keep theirs.

Somehow, I don’t think prayer is going to be enough.

Skandia Recluse on April 24, 2010 at 2:51 PM

I agree with the general tenet that if you give the islamist ______________ cretins an inch…

If you insert any other religous demo in the blank, I think HA management would discuss the TOU with you.

ericdijon on April 24, 2010 at 2:55 PM

If that means we resist depicting their prophet, so be it. It’s a small sacrifice to make it if means living to fight another day.

If this is your attitude, then you’re already dead.

uknowmorethanme on April 24, 2010 at 3:13 PM

I find this post very perplexing, Howard. Why would submitting now and voluntarily living under this one aspect of sharia make it easier to fight back later? Why would it not make it easier to submit to other aspects of sharia later on?

Laura on April 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM

It’s amazing how many people are completely missing the point here.

The point is not: “Why upset muslims unnecessarily?”

It’s more along the lines of: “Why should we not stand up for our right of freedom of expression WITHOUT THE THREAT OF DEATH?”

Get it?

That’s a rather important distinction. Individuals shouldn’t have to fear for their lives (limbs & heads) just because someone might take offense.

I’ve been deeply offended by many obscene depictions of “art” and yet I’ve never threatened to kill anyone (or chop their heads off!) because of them.

Alas, nowadays we shouldn’t “rock the boat” so as to offend those that threaten violence and murder when they are offended. Ridiculous.

Grow a backbone people! This is AMERICA!

munchnstuf on April 24, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Geez….

If INDIVIDUALS don’t stand up, there isn’t a NATION that will.

How the HELL did you miss that one, Howard???

Ragspierre on April 24, 2010 at 4:29 PM

While I enjoy your thoughtful writing Howard, and generally agree with the opinions you arrive at, not this time.
Submission is zero sum. There is no ‘degree of submission’, or ‘lay still for this battle, we’ll get’em on the next’.
You either submit, or don’t. After attempting to right wrongs in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan during both Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom, working to help a people who wished me dead with every smile they gave, I will take the risk of being singled out and targeted.
The most accurate part of this piece is the quote from the Post’s editorial.
I welcome the opportunity to assist yet one more member of the ‘religion of peace’ to meet Allah.

redneckjoe on April 24, 2010 at 4:31 PM

we need to do what it takes to survive—both en masse and as individuals. If that means we resist depicting their prophet, so be it. It’s a small sacrifice to make it if means living to fight another day.

No. A world of no. It’s the first amendment, and I will not sacrifice that. If I lose that, exercising any of my other rights–especially as a woman and *especially* as a bisexual woman–would make my life worthless, which is what most women are worth in Sharia culture anyway.

Maybe you don’t want to take that risk. I have no choice but to. At least no other choice that would let me face myself in the mirror every day.

kc-anathema on April 24, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Cowardly Central indeed.

joe_doufu on April 24, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Howard, a nation isn’t separate from the individuals it comprises, and if it becomes so, then it’s not much of a nation. All individuals need to stand up to intimidation whatever form it takes. By doing so, the nation stands up.

Frankly, I’m staggered by your Stockholm syndrome response here.

Ozwitch on April 24, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Wow, why even post something like this? If I had to paraphrase this post, I’d probably go with: “It’s only worth standing up for something if you’ve got nothing to lose.”

I think we’ve all heard it said before:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

-Ben F.

Living4Him5534 on April 24, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Before you exception me your exceptions, understand:

I don’t think so.

We can show pictures of anyone and still survive.

exception on April 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Some general reactions to the comments here:

1. The nation vs. the individual: Yes nations are comprised of individuals, but when individuals are singled out for attack, what do those who make this argument perceive to be the nation’s role? Unless Parker and Stone place themselves in protective custody (Salman Rushdie anyone?), they are vulnerable.

2. Submission/sharia law: Choosing not to denigrate a figure central to someone else’s religion–even if there are misguided people who commit acts of savagery in the name of that religion–is not submitting; it’s exercising civility and, in this case, sound judgment.

3. First amendment rights: See 2 above. Yes, the first amendment protects your right to say what you want when you want. To choose not to say something inflammatory that might cost your life because of real-world circumstances is a choice that anyone sane will make.

Bottom line, here, is if any of you want to go ahead and put your hands through the bars of the cage and see what happens, be my guest. I maintain that discretion in this case is the better part of valor.

Howard Portnoy on April 24, 2010 at 8:58 PM

You’re entitled to do as you please, of course. (For now.) But it’s not any part of valor, especially when you yourself admit you’re making the choice not on principle – i.e. it’s just wrong to denigrate religious figures – but out of fear of the repercussions.

Laura on April 24, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Unbelievable. I haven’t been around this site for a bit; I may never come back. These “nuanced” arguments for circumscribing our freedoms in the face of a death cult whose intimidations continue to metastasize within the Western world are nothing more than sniveling moral abdication. Why is the importance of this fight so hard to understand? I stood at the Danish embassy a few years ago in solidarity with the courage of the Danish editors, and have marveled since then at the abject failure of our own cultural figures to defend freedom of speech (I wrote Comedy Central five years ago over their previous censorship, and terminated my cable service), and at the strange disjunction I saw in Bush between the resolve to fight them in foreign lands and the stupefying accommodations to their quieter and more insidious encroachments at home. You think this is a minor issue? It is not. You are stunningly wrong.

Even lacking all drawing skills, I will make my cartoon.

rrpjr on April 24, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Hey rrpjr, not everyone has these same beliefs at this site (see Allahpundit[I'm assuming] for example). I think you’ll find that most folks agree with your sentiment. I won’t be drawing a cartoon, mostly because I think it’s a not a particularly good way of changing peoples’ minds or building relationships, but I think everyone who wants to should be allowed to without fear of death or retribution. In that sense, I definitely support this endeavor.

Living4Him5534 on April 24, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Howard, you’re saying in your comment that you equate muslims with animals behind cages. I agree that some are, but you yourself are drawing an analogy that’s worse than just insulting one prophet.

If your idea of civility is the same as not submitting, shouldn’t I also be civil and not offend their moral compass by wearing an abaya or hijab? I can’t censor my body, so why would I try to censor my tongue?

As for that analogy about animals in cages, that isn’t quite accurate. The animal isn’t in a cage–it’s loose. We’re not dangling meat–we *are* the meat just by living our lives the way we always do. And we aren’t victims. Unless we let ourselves be.

kc-anathema on April 25, 2010 at 1:46 AM

“That eventuality—a day when the last of these monstrous miscreants takes his last breath—is something to be devoutly wished for. But until it arrives, we need to do what it takes to survive—both en masse and as individuals. If that means we resist depicting their prophet, so be it. It’s a small sacrifice to make it if means living to fight another day.”
It’s a small sacrifice because you apparently have no intention of fighting any day. They already threaten and murder, so what exactly is your bright-line they haven’t crossed yet? You advocate dhimmitude.

nraendowment on April 25, 2010 at 6:05 AM

living4himself: thanks, and all right, that sounds good. But who are you “building relationships” too? People nwho want to slit your throat for drawing a cartoon? That’s all we’re talking about. One can’t split and partition or put in abeyance any part of freedom of speech. It’s an all or nothing deal. The sum is the parts, and dies without each. That is to say, there is no compromise here. This is war. It is an everlasting shame on any leader who can’t define it as such, an insult to his forbears and to those everywhere who have sacrificed for freedom. Every American worth his salt will draw a cartoon on May 20th. Not because he wishes to overtly insult, but because he needs to assert the right to do so; and not only if or because he wishes to keep the right to insult, but because he needs to recognize that that right is inseparable from his right to speak at all.

I suggest you look up the story of Joe Kaufman, a writer now in his fourth year of a costly civil suit brought by a host of Islamic groups in Texas attempting to destroy his freedom of speech. Documents acquired in disclosure have revealed this very Islamic strategy: to throw money toward such lawsuits in order to intimidate free speech. This is a longstanding and long-term effort to reshape the landscape of acceptable public communication in the Western world. It does not stop at forcing people to flinch before making insults.

rrpjr on April 25, 2010 at 9:56 AM

That eventuality—a day when the last of these monstrous miscreants takes his last breath—is something to be devoutly wished for.

Old Adage:If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Being a dhimmi isn’t going to bring about your wish.

Disturb the Universe on April 25, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Mr Portnoy:

We as individuals MUST stand up because our leaders have not. We’ve been told the religion where 60-plus percent of its adherents are sympathetic with 9/11 and more than half would not report a plot if they had prior knowledge is a religion of peace.

We are told we must be sensitive to the MAJ Hasans–until the very moment they are slaughtering our friends and family–but the Franklin Grahams simply go too far by noting Islam subjugates women to sub-human standards.

We are not allowed to even use words like “Islamic” and “terrorism” in the same sentence but must endure such sanitized nonsense as “man-caused disasters” (but Tea Partiers are full-throatedly labelled seditious traitors).

We watch almost daily as our so-called president bows and apologizes to misogynist dictators who fund the very Islamic terrorists we fight.

We’re told our war to defend ourselves is an imperialist occupation for racist corporations instigated by lies and this meme is the incessant drum-beat of the faction that lied our current CinC into office by covering his own racist, terrorist, radical past from media scrutiny.

Mr. Portnoy, exactly which nation do you imagine will be the one to stand against these encroachments? Please feel free to define the point at which the intolerance becomes intolerable.

Our national leaders will not defend those who put them in office so the people must defend themselves.

If the balance of Muslims take offense at our push-back then too bad for them. Their chance to speak up was when the radicals in their midst were threatening us. They saw fit to stay silent them, we encourage them to maintain that policy now.

I for one will be sending my drawing submission to reason.com…but there will be no submission to Islam or cowardice.

Mr Snuggle Bunny on April 25, 2010 at 11:31 AM

I imagine there will be Hordes of Freedom loving Muslims out on the street protesting these Radical’s threats against free speech, right?

Chip on April 25, 2010 at 1:14 PM

1. The nation vs. the individual: Yes nations are comprised of individuals, but when individuals are singled out for attack, what do those who make this argument perceive to be the nation’s role? Unless Parker and Stone place themselves in protective custody (Salman Rushdie anyone?), they are vulnerable.

Howard Portnoy on April 24, 2010 at 8:58 PM

Of course they are, and that’s why it’s in the nation’s best interest for hundreds more to rise up and do the same as Matt and Trey, so that it’s not just one or two individuals being threatened but numbers greater than theirs, numbers they can’t possibly touch.

It shows not only that we aren’t affraid (and why should we be? these are tiny people; we live in the most powerful country in the world) and that we won’t put up with the threats.

It will only get harder to fight later, not easier, and giving in now will only encourage them.

We are bigger and better than they are. There’s no reason we shouldn’t act like it.

Esthier on April 26, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Pathetic. “Kill me last, please”.

lionheart on April 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM