Community Magazine November 2009

publishing a book that Muslims find offensive could be hazardous to the health of a good many people.” Spencer also noted how Random House’s capitu- lation is characteristic and symptom- atic of the fear instilled by Islamists: “It is becoming increasingly common for Americans to bow to pressure from Muslims to accommodate Islamic prac- tices and mores. It is also becoming common for the specter of violence to inhibit discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify ter- rorism.” The story of The Jewel of Medina does not end here. One month later, the London-based Gibson Square publish- ing house decided to publish the novel, for the noble reason described by pub- lisher Martin Rynja: “There has to be open access to literary works, regardless of fear. As an independent publish- ing company, we feel strongly that we should not be afraid of the consequences of debate.” Unfortunately for him, those “conse- quences” did not take long to surface. Just three weeks after Gibson Square announced its plans to publish the novel, Rynja’s London home was firebombed. In a different article on the Jewel of Medina affair, Robert Spencer cites the following, sobering observation from British author Kenan Malik: “In the 20 years between the publication of The Satanic Verses and the withdrawal of The Jewel of Medina , the fatwa [against Salman Rushdie]…has become internal- ized. Not only do publishers drop books deemed offensive but theaters savage plays, opera houses cut productions, art galleries censor shows, all in the name of cultural sensitivity.” The potential long-term repercussions of this trend, according to Spencer, are grim: “Beyond the issue of this novel, if the people in America, Britain and elsewhere who are threatened by the global jihad and Islamic supremacism are not willing to stand up and fight for the ability to hold in conscience to views that differ from those that Muslims wish us to hold, then all is lost. The jiha- dists are willing to go all the way – to give up their very lives – in their quest to control ours. For them, no price is too high.” Playing the Islamophobia Card While Islamists loath the Western ideals of freedom of expression and tolerance of the point of view of others, in an ironic twist, their sympathizers and apologists use these very same ideals in a twisted attempt to vilify any- one who criticizes just about anything associated with Muslims. Capitalizing on the West’s affinity for open-ended tolerance, “moderate” Muslim groups engage in Jihad through the seemingly benign means of public relations and legal action. Cries of “prejudice” and “Islamophobia” have proven exceed- ingly effective in silencing critics of radical Islam and whistle-blowers seek- ing to alert the free world to the threats it poses. Last year, Dutch politician Geert Wilders filmed a short movie entitled Fitna , aimed at exposing hate-filled pas- sages from the Koran and demonstrat- ing how the book encourages Muslims to despise those who violate its teach- ings. Wilders described the film as “a call to shake off the creeping tyranny of Islamization.” Alarmingly, the critical response to Fitna came not only from Islamists, their sympathizers and apologists, but also from the judiciary in Wilders’ own country, the Netherlands. A Dutch court ordered state prosecutors to try Wilders for “inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs.” A Frightened Media A summary of Daniel Pipes’ compilation entitled “Media Admits Censorship due to Islamist Intimidation,” which lists a handful of famous instances since 2006 where Western media companies censored themselves due to Islamist intimidation. Feb.10,2006 - Boston Phoenix listed the following as the first of three reasons not to publish the Muhammad cartoons: “…fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do. This is, frankly, our primary reason for not publishing any of the images in question. Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we 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.” Mar.29,2006 - Borders Books admitted its fears when it refused to sell an issue of the magazine Free Inquiry which contained four of the Muhammad cartoon: “For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority.” Apr.6,2006 - Comedy Central channel, in a generic letter sent to viewers who complained that an image of the Muhammad cartoons had been deleted from “South Park” wrote: “Comedy Central’s belief in the First Amendment has not wavered, despite our decision not to air an image of Muhammad. Our decision was made not to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion over any other. This decision was based solely on concern for public safety in light of recent world events.” Aug.28,2006 - Berkeley Breathed’s Opus comic strip was yanked by the Washington Post for two weeks when the ever- searching and faddish Lola Granola character became an Islamist. Fox News explained: “… the strips were shown to Muslim staffers at The Washington Post to gauge their reaction, and they responded “emotionally” to the depiction of a woman dressed in traditional Muslim garb and espousing conservative Islamic views.” continued... 36 COMMUNITY MAGAZINE