The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is... Islam

Burning books is a bad idea. Burning the Quran as a protest is a bad idea. So is burning the Bible or the Torah.

One should show some respect for what other people hold to be sacred.

But one should also show some respect for secular symbols that signify community. Burning the American flag is also a bad idea.

And yet, if someone announces that he is going to burn the American flag, his supporters will rally to his defense. They will encourage him. You must understand that he is a performance artist.

If you don't like his art, you need to get over it.

Remember the famous, or infamous art work, Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ." Many people found it grossly offensive. When they expressed that opinion they were told that they were Philistines and that they had to get over it.

For our intellectual elites the propriety of showing the offensive image, or burning the flag, has never been in question. They save their criticism for those who take offense at the piece, accusing them of being intolerant and narrow minded and aesthetically retarded.

When it comes to books and images that Islam holds sacred, there is clearly a double standard.

No one is running around saying that Muslims must learn to be more tolerant of blasphemy, because all other deities are regularly blasphemed, and because blasphemy is part of free expression.

Not at all. On the contrary, people from all walks of life, politicians of every stripe, are begging and pleading with Rev. Terry Jones not to burn a Quran on September 11.

(As I am writing, reports are coming in to the effect that Rev. Jones has called off his auto-da-fe, but that another pastor has sworn to burn his own Quran if Rev. Jones really backs down.)

People do not want Rev. Jones to burn a Quran for a simple reason: they do not want blood on their hands. They do not want to feel guilty for unleashing an orgy of Islamic violence around the world.

And they have good reason to believe that the threats are for real. We all recall what happened when a Danish newspaper published some cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. And we recall what happened when Newsweek reported, in error, that troops at Gitmo were flushing Qurans down the toilet.

No one is saying that Islam needs to get in better tune with modernity. No one is criticizing the Afghans who were burning the American flag in protest of the possibility that a no-account pastor in Florida, with a flock of dozens, was going to burn a Quran.

While some Muslims have declared that violence is not a proper reaction to a Quran burning, their voices have barely risen above the din. I do recommend Asra Nomani's post on The Daily Beast: Link here.

Are we talking about a religion of peace or a religion of terror.

Take the supposedly conciliatory imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf of Ground Zero mosque fame.

Imam Rauf believes that Americans should submit to his imperious demand. Read his own words: "But if we don't do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If we don't do this correctly, this crisis will become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the world. And we have a much bigger footprint in the Muslim world."

As I said, religion of peace or religion of terror? Conciliation or threat?

Or better, as James Taranto has explained it: "What was initially marketed as a gesture of conciliation has turned into a protection racket...." Link here.

Everyone knows that you cannot keep paying protection. And everyone also knows that the Islamic world is not offering any reciprocal gestures of respect to images and books that the West holds sacred. Is it any wonder that some people are standing up and saying: Enough!

You may know it-- if you don't it will not come as a surprise-- but it is common practice in Saudi Arabia to tear up and throw away Bibles found in the luggage of incoming international passengers.

If Confucius was right to say that the single most important word in ethics is: reciprocity, Islam has not yet achieved normal ethical development.

As I say, someone someday will have to stand up to the reign of Islamic terror. One might reasonably argue that this is not a task that should be undertaken by a pastor in Florida.

But, one should also acknowledge that the reputation of Muslims is going to suffer grievously from this kerfuffle, no matter how it turns out.

Muslims should be aware of the simple fact that by overreacting to the actions of a no-account pastor or a bunch of Danish cartoonists, they are diminishing their reputation in the eyes of the world.

Does this have consequences? Of course, it does.

Consider this: last month Pakistan suffered calamitous flooding. 2.6 million acres were under water. 14 million people were affected. Hundreds of thousands of homes were destroyed. Well over a thousand lives have been lost.

Normally, this kind of human catastrophe that mobilizes the world community. Charity and aid organizations spring into action; telethons raise money to help the suffering citizens; American know-how, both public and private, rides to the rescue.

Only, not this time. The Guardian reported on this last month. Link here. One doubts that anyone sat down and said that they were going to let the Pakistanis fend for themselves. And yet, that is what happened.

Does it matter that Pakistan is one of the major epicenters of international Islamic terror? Does it matter that Pakistan has offered aid and shelter to the Taliban and al Qaeda? Does it matter that Muslims too often demand special consideration for their religion while failing to offer the least respect to anyone else's religion?

It is difficult to define cause and effect here, but I don't think it is too far fetched to suggest that, as they say in the vernacular, what goes around comes around.