Cartoon Pretext

Like a few others, I’ve struggled with what to call the whole Islamic reaction to the cartoons printed in Denmark, but have provisionally settled on two short forms: Cartoon Jihad (which is used by Michelle Malkin and many others), and Cartoon Pretext. The first captures the typical Islamic method of “argumentation”: violence and unrest; while the second captures their dishonesty (e.g. burning down KFC has absolutely nothing to do with cartoons in Denmark). I will alternate between the two appellations as appropriate.

A few updates:

In a story that has often been covered over the past several years at Frontpage magazine (among others), European countries are already sliding towards Islamic rule. For example, police in Germany and France have indicated that they have no control in many suburbs, that they cannot even safely enter them, so these areas are already de facto governed by sharia. This very important story argues that Britain will soon follow:

Dr Sookhdeo adds that he believes that "in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law.

"It is already starting to happen - and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue."

The Islamic view of appeasement is also clearly stated:

"They think they have won the debate," he says with a sigh. "They believe that the British Government has capitulated to them, because it feared the consequences if it did not.

"The cartoons, you see, have not been published in this country, and the Government has been very critical of those countries in which they were published. To many of the Islamic clerics, that's a clear victory.

"It's confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call 'adverse consequences' - violence to the rest of us - then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent."

The author also offers an intellectual observation that every Westerner must understand if we are to survive:

Perhaps the explanation is just that they do not take it seriously. "I fear that is exactly the problem," says Dr Sookhdeo. "The trouble is that Tony Blair and other ministers see Islam through the prism of their own secular outlook.

They simply do not realise how seriously Muslims take their religion. Islamic clerics regard themselves as locked in mortal combat with secularism.

"For example, one of the fundamental notions of a secular society is the moral importance of freedom, of individual choice. But in Islam, choice is not allowable: there cannot be free choice about whether to choose or reject any of the fundamental aspects of the religion, because they are all divinely ordained. God has laid down the law, and man must obey.

Read the whole article as it reveals much about the nature of Islam. (HT The Free West Blog)

Jeff Jacoby reports on a newspaper finally telling the truth about why they won’t publish the cartoons. It has nothing to do with objectivity or restraint and everything to do with fear (and given our government’s unwillingness to protect our rights, I don’t blame them one bit). The whole article is worth reading, but here is the summary of why the magazine won’t publish the cartoons:

''Our primary reason," the editors confessed, is ''fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do . . . Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and . . . could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year-publishing history."