A Danish newspaper published a series of cartoons depicting Mohammed, the founder of Islam, in less than flattering ways. Among them is an image of the prophet with a turban resembling a bomb. The implication, of course, is that the prophet founded a religion of terror.

Islamic protesters worldwide came out in force, threatening death and destruction to those responsible. In London, protesters waved signs that read, “Butcher those who mock Islam” and “Slay those who insult Islam.” Not to be outdone, others carried placards that read, “Freedom go to hell” and “Prepare for the real holocaust.”

In Gaza, bands of angry Muslims scoured their neighborhoods in search of foreigners whom they might take hostage. (One might think that hostage taking has become the Sixth Pillar of Islam.)

How could those crazy cartoonists have gotten it into their heads that Islam is a violent religion?

Imagine a paper portraying Jesus as a stark raving lunatic and a bumpkin. In protest, the streets are filled with stark raving Christian lunatic bumpkins, waving signs that read, “Don’t insalt my Savyoor” and “Y’all made my momma cry.”

It is, of course, unwise to judge a religion, or a philosophy, for that matter, by the behavior of its followers. In his exchange with atheist Robert Blatchford, G.K. Chesterton wryly observed that saying, “Christians persecuted; down with Christianity” is like saying, “A Confucian stole my hairbrush; down with Confucianism.” He adds, “We want to know whether the reason for which the Confucian stole the hairbrush was a reason peculiar to the Confucians or a reason common to many other men.”

Islam has a serious PR problem, thanks to the worldwide terror tactics of organizations such as al Qaeda and a bevy of al Qaeda wannabes, all invoking the name of Allah as they kill and maim children for the sake of killing and maiming children. And the image is not exactly enhanced when it appears that Muslim cab drivers, butchers and shoemakers can be prompted to frenzied violence, calling for another holocaust because someone drew a cartoon or someone else said that a Koran might have been flushed.

And, of course, Islamic violence was not inaugurated in September of 2001. For one small instance, did you know that author Salman Rushdie is still on the run after the Ayatollah’s 1989 fatwah against him for writing the “Satanic Verses”?

At the time, even Cat Stevens, Mr. “Peace Train” himself but a recent convert, joined the Islamic chorus calling for the author’s death. Thinking that time heals all wounds, Rushdie visited his hometown of Bombay a couple of years ago after 14 years in exile. However, he had to beat a hasty retreat when rabid Muslim mobs echoed the 1989 refrain, carrying banners that read, “Kill Salman Rushdie!”

Mohammed Saeed Noori, head of one of the Islamic groups who continue to oppose Rushdie, explained, “Under the law of an Islamic country, he should be killed.” A Jeffersonian republican this man is not.

One hopes that these are the spokesmen of Crackpot Islam in the way that some televangelists are the spokesmen of Crackpot Christianity. Unfortunately, both crackpots have managed to gain a wide audience.

To paraphrase Chesterton, we want to know whether the reason for which these people are preaching violence and committing acts of terror is a reason peculiar to Islam or a reason common to many other men.

Assuming that the latter explanation applies here, the voice of a kinder, gentler Islam must gain a hearing. Islamic clerics should be vocal in condemning terror and, assuming that it is there, preaching a Koranic message of peace. Islamic apologists should come to the fore, distinguishing the true Islam from its caricature and reassuring the non-Islamic world that it is not to be put to the sword after all.

Else, those images in that Danish paper fairly represent a growing worldwide impression of the prophet and his religion, and the fault lines can only grow deeper and wider.

Mark D. Linville
Fayetteville, Ga.

login to post comments