Double standard behind those Danish cartoons

Are you having as much trouble as I am in coming to grips with Islam's worldwide overreaction to political cartoons that were published by Danish newspapers last fall?

The cartoons appeared in September and militant Muslims reacted by orchestrating violent demonstrations against Denmark and other western nations in January. All of which leads to a question: What kind of a religion is this?

A few years ago I wrote a column that asked whether Islam is a peaceful religion. As you might imagine, I received a wide range of answers from Appeal readers, many of whom assured me that Islam is indeed peaceful. Others weren't so sure, however, and joined me in condemning extremist imams who prescribe death sentences for "infidels" (non-Muslims) and recruit the bloodthirsty suicide bombers who murder innocent women and children in the name of their God, Allah. That doesn't sound like a peaceful, tolerant religion to me, no matter what the Koran says about peace and tolerance.

I ask myself how a few crude political cartoons published in Denmark five months ago could have triggered violent demonstrations and riots in major cities throughout the Islamic world. The main complaint seems to be that the cartoons depict the face of the Muslim prophet, Muhammed. One particularly egregious depiction shows him sporting a bomb for a turban, which is clearly beyond the bounds of good taste. But is it any worse than some of the insults that other religions have suffered in the mass media in recent months and years? I don't think so. So why the double-standard?

In other words, why are western media outlets censoring themselves in order to avoid offending super-sensitive Muslims at a time when Christians and Jews are fair game for political satire, and worse? For example, even as the New York Times censored itself by not running the offending Danish cartoons, "America's newspaper of record" re-published a photo of "Piss Christ," a controversial work of art featuring a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine. And then there was that widely published depiction of a dung-covered Virgin Mary in the name of "art" and "freedom of expression." God bless the First Amendment. Right?

It seems to me that western journalists frequently exercise their First Amendment right to make fun of religious icons, except when it comes to Islam, which is somehow inviolate. Sorry, but I don't buy that double-standard and neither does conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who criticized western "moderates" that defend blasphemous images of Christ, "but who are seized with a sudden religious sensitivity when the subject is Muhammed."

What I found interesting in researching this column is that some enlightened Islamic scholars acknowledge a double-standard and recognize that there's no absolute prohibition against publishing images of their prophet. "There is no Quranic (or Koranic) injunction against images of Muhammed, or anyone else," wrote Amir Taheri in the Wall Street Journal. "The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammed and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammed have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers."

And a leading European-based Muslim scholar, Tariq Ramadan, wrote that "a number of Danish Muslims brought news of the issue (the cartoons) to the Middle East and stirred up resentment in several countries" while some European intellectuals, journalists and politicians took advantage of the situation "to present themselves as champions of the equally great struggle for freedom of expression .... What is really at the heart of this sad story is the capacity to be free, rational and reasonable in regard to both one's own beliefs and those of others." And so it is, except that no one is listening, especially in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world.

Meanwhile, the worldwide rioting goes on and on. Iranian mullahs, in an obvious attempt to divert the attention of the faithful from the explosive (literally) question of nuclear weapons, continue to rail against the Danish cartoons. Just last week beleaguered Iranian leaders and clerics demanded an apology after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused them of using the cartoons as an excuse for frenzied anti-western demonstrations. To her credit, Rice declined to apologize and said that Iran and Syria should be urging their citizens to remain calm - not encouraging violent attacks against western diplomatic missions in Tehran, Damascus and Beirut, Lebanon.

Time magazine essayist Andrew Sullivan also criticized the Islamic double-standard and argued that Muslims should be apologizing to the West for the violence, and not the other way around. After the Egyptian ambassador to Denmark urged the Danish government "to do something to appease the Muslim world," Sullivan wrote that "the opposite is the case. The Muslim world needs to do something to appease the West. Since Ayatullah Khomeini declared a death sentence against Salman Rushdie for how he depicted Muhammed in his book, 'The Satanic Verses,' Islamic radicals have been essentially threatening the free discussion of their religion and politics in the West."

"There's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily," he continued. "We owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance - and they have now done so, in abundance."

Appeasement is definitely NOT the answer to this virulent form of religious intolerance, and our leaders should hold the line to avoid rewarding hypocrisy and violence.

n Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City.