Drawing Mohammed draws ire, to say the least — but that’s not stopping a Dutch anti-Islamization party from hosting an event to do just that. As the Week reports:
The Netherlands-based Party for Freedom (PVV) is to hold a competition inviting its members to draw cartoons depicting Islam’s Prophet Mohammed.
The party, led by anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders, is the main opposition in the Dutch parliament, after coming second in elections in March last year.
“Dutch Counter-terrorism Agency NCTV gives green light to Muhammad cartoon contest in secured PVV quarters of Dutch Parliament later this year,” Wilders tweeted yesterday, along with a Mohammed cartoon.
“So that’s what we’re going to do and organize! With cartoonist/ex-Muslim Bosch Fawstin! Freedom of speech is most important of all!!”
Cartoons and other depictions of Mohammad have provoked violent responses in the past.
That may be the understatement of the year. “Depicting the image of Prophet Mohammad is consider [sic] blasphemy among many followers of Islam,” relates the Express. The paper then continues:
In 2015, Islamist terrorists killed 12 people at the newsroom of French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo after it printed cartoons of Mohammad.
In 2005, the publication of a dozen drawings depicting the Prophet in Danish magazine Jyllands-Posten led to violent protests across the Muslim world.
And American cartoonist Molly Norris has been deemed a “prime target” for execution by Islamic extremist [sic] after depicting the likeness of the prophet on several items.
In fact, Norris drew the original cartoon for the very first “draw Mohammed” competition, a May 20, 2010 event declared the first annual “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”; it was born of support for artists threatened with violence for creating representations of the Muslim “prophet.” One result was that Norris found herself on the aforementioned al-Qaeda hit list and has been in hiding since 2010.
Wilders has expressed a desire (2015 video below) to hold his contest ever since he spoke at the 2015 “Draw Mohammed” competition in Garland, Texas. Interestingly, it, too, was in part designed to support Mohammed-portraying artists and was also a scene of Islamic violence. In fact, two people were killed in an attack that critics say was actually encouraged by the Obama-era FBI (a man injured during it is suing the bureau on this basis).
Whatever the case, there’s no question that the media and pseudo-elites have no sympathy for those who “slander the prophet,” as Barack Obama once put it. Texas “Draw Mohammed” event organizer Pamela Geller explained that they’d “decided to have a cartoon contest to show we would not kowtow to violent intimidation and allow the freedom of speech to be overwhelmed by thugs and bullies.” Yet this cuts no ice with her critics, who condemn such events as incitement to violence and “purposely provocative.” This is rank hypocrisy.
Just this past Saturday there was a 600-strong protest at New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, which is hosting the “Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination” exhibition, found offensive by many Catholics. There was nary a peep from the media about how inappropriately “provocative” it is.
Then there were the works of “art” showing a crucifix immersed in a bowl of urine and the Virgin Mary smeared in elephant dung, and the Hollywood movies and shows that frequently — and purposely — take the Lord’s name in vain. Not only didn’t and doesn’t the Left complain; its minions often actually revel in mocking and offending Christians. “Grow up and suck it up — and how dare you try to engage in censorship and suppress freedom of expression!” is the response.
So what’s the difference? That Christians pray for their enemies and not kill them? If Christians mounted physical attacks, would the above also then be condemned as “incitement to violence”?
Of course not. Instead, Christians would be condemned as violent (which they often are already, based on revisionist history — e.g., the Crusades) and clamped down on hard.
Sadly, though, violence combined with protected-group status really does work. Charlie Hebdo, which prided itself on its irreverence and was one of the only leftist entities to draw Mohammed, said it would no longer do so after the attack on its offices. This all, by the way, puts the lie to the claim that Christianity-mocking artists are “brave.” They’re simply hostile, bigoted people who pick on soft targets — ones that won’t cut their bloody heads off.
Having said this, there is the deeper issue of what should be held sacred, a status that every civilization grants to certain things. For example, in accordance with our racial “religion,” we have our untouchable figures (e.g., Martin Luther King) and unforgivable transgressions, such as politically incorrect commentary and humor (see Rosanne Barr, et al.).
But while scholars disgorge philoso-babble about whether drawing Mohammed constitutes “hate speech,” they all miss the point. What should determine what’s held sacred?
If Islam were true, then it perhaps would be wise to refrain from representing Mohammed. Oh, as a practical and politeness matter, we may also at times make certain concessions to certain people (e.g., when Thomas Jefferson rearranged a dinner party, as a matter of diplomacy, to accommodate a Tunisian envoy’s Ramadan fast). But elevating lies to sacred status — a practice occupying political correctness’ heart, mind you — can bring a civilization to destruction. And denying the truly sacred its rightful status can bring a land to barbarism. What a pity that today we sanctify all the wrong things.