What Did You Say About Muhammad?!

by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
May 12, 2010
http://www.meforum.org/2650/what-did-you-say-about-muhammad
Which is more likely to elicit an irate Muslim response: 1) public cartoons of t
he Muslim prophet Muhammad, or 2) public proclamations that Muhammad was a bisex
ual, sometime transvestite and necrophile, who enjoyed sucking on the tongues of
children, commanded a woman to "breastfeed" an adult man, and advised believers
to drink his urine for salutary health?
Based on the recent South Park fiasco—where an animated episode depicting Muhamm
ad in a bear suit sparked outrage among various Muslim groups, culminating with
the usual death threats—the answer is clear: cartoons, once again, have proven t
o be the Muslim world's premiere provocateur. Indeed, during a university lectur
e the other day, Swedish artist Lars Vilks, whose life is in jeopardy due to his
depiction of Muhammad as a dog, was violently assaulted to ululations of "Allah
u Akbar!" (Islam's primordial war cry).
Yet how can cartoons rouse Muslim ire more than public assertions that Muhammad
was a bisexual, a transvestite, a necrofile, et al? First, context:
The evangelical Arabic satellite station, al-Haya (Life TV), regularly takes the
Muslim prophet to task, especially on two weekly programs: Hiwar al-Haq (Truth
Talk), hosted by Coptic priest Fr. Zakaria Botros, and Su'al Jari' (Daring Quest
ion), hosted by ex-Muslim Rashid. Both shows revolve around asking uncomfortable
questions about Islam and its founder in an effort to prompt Muslims to reconsi
der the legitimacy of their faith. (It is on these shows that the aforementioned
, unflattering assertions of Muhammad originate; see here and here for English s
ummaries.)
These broadcasts are viewed by millions of Arabic-speaking Muslims around the wo
rld. That the satellite station strikes a Muslim nerve is evinced by the fact th
at it is formally banned in several Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia, and
is regularly condemned by Islam's demagogues on mainstream Arabic media, includi
ng al Jazeera.
When the programs first began airing, they certainly caused uproar in the Muslim
world. Then, Muslims regularly called in cursing the hosts, promising them deat
h and destruction (both here and in the hereafter). Al-Qaeda reportedly put a $6
0 million bounty on Fr. Zakaria's head; and the priest is on CAIR's radar. (See
the father make his famous "ten demands" of Islam here and explain his mission i
n this rare English interview.)
Far from being cowed by the daily death threats, however, Life TV and its unrepe
ntant hosts have responded by upping the ante and providing even more anecdotes
discrediting Muhammad. Rashid recently examined the theological implications of
Muhammad's hatred for the gecko lizard, which the prophet accused of being "an i
nfidel and enemy of the believers." Muslims who kill it in the first strike rece
ive 100 "heavenly-points," whereas those who kill it in two strikes receive only
70. More graphically, Fr. Zakaria recently examined canonical hadiths (authenti
cated Muslim accounts) that record Islam's first believers eating Muhammad's fec
es, marinating food in his sweat, drinking the water he gargled and spit out, an
d smearing his phlegm all over their faces—all to his approval.
Needless to say, Life TV's hosts—especially the flamboyant Fr. Zakaria—are hated
by Muslims around the world. But to the careful observer, the outrage appears t
o be subsiding, ostensibly replaced by apathy—that is, the default strategy when
threats and displays of indignation fail. Most callers are now Muslim converts
to Christianity, who encourage and thank Fr. Zakaria and Rashid (often in tears)
. Conversely, the diminishing angry callers usually spew a barrage of insults, c
ulminating with a "may-you-burn-in-hell," and quickly—almost as if ashamed of th
eir impotent behavior—hang up.
Now, back to our original observation: how can Life TV get away with outlandish
weekly disparagements concerning Muhammad, whereas Western cartoons spark widesp
read outrage? Considering that millions of more Muslims watch Life TV than have
ever heard of South Park makes the question doubly puzzling.
The answer is simple: the South Park incident is less a reflection of Muslim ang
er and more of Western appeasement. By constantly buckling in to the slightest M
uslim displeasure—whether by altering films, removing museum art, or canceling b
ook launches—the West has perpetuated a vicious cycle wherein Muslim sensitiviti
es are ever heightened and outraged at the slightest slight, and Western freedom
s of expression are correspondingly diminished and trampled upon. What's worse,
such self-imposed censorship falls right into the hands of homegrown Islamists a
ctively working to subvert Western civilization from within.
Conversely, by holding fast to onetime Western principles of free speech and ope
n dialogue, Life TV has conditioned its Muslim viewers to accept that exposure a
nd criticism of their prophet is here to stay. As Fr. Zakaria often points out,
every religious figure is open to criticism: so why should Muhammad be sacrosanc
t? (Indeed, Comedy Central, which was quick to acquiesce to Muslim threats to ce
nsor South Park, is "brave" enough to run an entire cartoon series mocking Jesus
.)
Of course, one need not agree with Life TV's tactics or evangelical mission to a
ppreciate the lesson it imparts: Muslim outrage—as with all human outrage—is pre
dicated on how well it is tolerated. Continuously appeased, it becomes engorged
and insistent on more concessions; ignored, it deflates and, ashamed of itself,
withers away. Put differently, if you voluntarily act like a dhimmi—a subjugated
non-Muslim who must live in debased humility—you will be treated like a dhimmi
(including by being killed for the slightest offense); conversely, if you assert
yourself like a freeman, you will be perceived as a freeman—even as you are sti
ll hated.
To be fair, there is one caveat: whereas Muslims have no choice but to interpret
South Park's and Lars Vilk's caricatures of Muhammad as egregiously offensive—n
o known Muslim records depict Muhammad in the guise of a bear or dog—the much mo
re disturbing Life TV anecdotes all originate in Islam's most authoritative sour
ces (Koran, hadiths, tafsirs, fatwas, etc). In other words, perhaps the anger to
ward Life TV is subsiding as Muslims become reconciled to the fact that, no matt
er how heinous, the things being attributed to their prophet are, in fact, groun
ded in Muslim sources, and thus must be true.
Yet if that is the case, seems like silly cartoons of Muhammad are the least of
Muslims' problems.
Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al
Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.