Sunday, July 25, 2021   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home »

Daniel Pipes: A Muhammad Cartoon A Day

22 September 2012 12 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

Daniel Pipes: A Muhammad Cartoon A Day

On Friday, Youm-e-Ishq-e-Rasool (pbuh) [love of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Day] was observed throughout Pakistan. Many demonstrators  carried signs with red hearts bearing the Prophet’s name and inspiring slogans (“Our leader Muhammad” and “Honor Our Prophet”). This positive theme had great potential, but unfortunately, was marred by more violence.

A  thousand peaceful protests can be overshadowed by a single protest turned deadly, especially with the media so eager to highlight episodes of violence. Loons can hardly contain their glee.

In fact, Daniel Pipes wants to see more violence and mayhem. A lot more, until the so-called “Islamists” are finally tamed.

In his recent article published on mainstream conduit of hate, Fox News, Pipes has dipped into the historical archive and culled together an assortment of events, including the controversies over Salmon Rushdie’s lackluster book more than two decades ago, the Danish Cartoons of 2005, the nutty antics of the infamous “Reverend” Terry Jones, Qur’an burnings, and the recent provocations by the French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hedbo. He clearly relishes each and every incident that reinforces the notion of perpetual “Muslim outrage.”

According to his cynical interpretation of events, Muslims aren’t protesting because they’re defending their beloved Prophet Muhammad and their routinely maligned faith, Islam. Rather, Muslims, or “Islamists” in loon parlance, are protesting violently because they want to take over the West and abolish free speech.

Despite Pipes hateful motives and cynical exploitation of tragic events, he’s right about one thing: Provocateurs cannot be stopped by protests, and a violent backlash will only encourage more provocations. The right to free speech and exercising that right in a moral or responsible way are two different things, but it isn’t practical to legislate kindness and decency.

Many Muslims are quite understandably sickened and angered by attacks on their faith and the prophet they revere, but Islam is a religion of love and mercy, not of anger and revenge:

And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend. Qur’an 41:34

And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, “Peace!” Qur’an: 25:63 

You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive.  The Prophet Muhammad

These outrageous provocations will not end until they cease to generate sensational headlines, or in Pipe’s own callous words, ”until the Islamists [sic] become accustomed to the fact that we turn sacred cows into hamburger.”

A Muhammad Cartoon a day

by Daniel Pipes, Fox News

When Salman Rushdie mocked Islamic sanctities in his magical 1989 realist novel “The Satanic Verses,” Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini did something shockingly original: He issued a death edict on Rushdie and all those connected to the production of his book. By doing this, Khomeini sought to impose Islamic mores and laws on the West. We don’t insult the prophet, he effectively said, and neither can you.

That started a trend of condemning those in the West deemed anti-Islamic that persists to this day. Again and again, when Westerners are perceived as denigrating Muhammad, the Koran, or Islam, Islamists demonstrate, riot or kill.

Khomeini’s edict also had the unexpected side effect of empowering individuals – Western and Islamist alike – to drive their countries’ policies.

Fleming Rose, a newspaper editor, created the greatest crisis for Denmark since World War II by publishing 12 cartoons depicting Muhammad. Florida pastor Terry Jones sowed panic among American commanders in Afghanistan by threatening to burn a Koran. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and friends prompted a crisis in U.S.-Egyptian relations with his amateurish “Innocence of Muslims” video. And the satirical French weekly Charlie Hebdo caused the French government to temporarily shut down diplomatic missions in 20 countries. Plans by the German satirical magazine Titanic  to publish attacks on Muhammad likewise led German missions to be closed.

On the Islamist side, an individual or group took one of these perceived offenses and turned it into a reason to riot. Khomeini did this with “The Satanic Verses.” Ahmad Abu Laban did likewise with the Danish cartoons. Afghan President Hamid Karzai goaded his people to riot over burned Korans by American soldiers, and Egyptian preacher Khaled Abdullah turned “Innocence of Muslims” into an international event.

Any Westerner can now buy a Koran for a dollar and burn it, while any Muslim with a platform can transform that act into a fighting offense. As passions rise on both sides of the divide, Western provocateurs and Islamist hotheads have found each other, as confrontations occur with increasing frequency.

Which prompts this question: What would happen if publishers and managers of major media outlets reached a consensus — “Enough of this intimidation, we will publish the most famous Danish Muhammad cartoon every day, until the Islamists tire out and no longer riot”? What would happen if Korans were recurrently burned?

Would repetition inspire institutionalization, generate ever-more outraged responses, and offer a vehicle for Islamists to ride to greater power? Or would it lead to routinization, to a wearing out of Islamists, and a realization that violence is counter-productive to their cause?

I predict the latter. A Muhammad cartoon published each day, or Koranic desecrations on a quasi-regular basis, would make it harder for Islamists to mobilize Muslim mobs. Westerners could then once again treat Islam as they do other religions – freely, to criticize without fear. That would demonstrate to Islamists that Westerners will not capitulate, that they reject Islamic law, that they are ready to stand up for their values.

So, this is my plea to all Western editors and producers: Display the Muhammad cartoon daily, until the Islamists become accustomed to the fact that we turn sacred cows into hamburger.


  1. The fatwa against Rushdie and his publishers gives the lie to those who say islamic law applies only to muslims. It is the goal of Islam to bring everyone under the muslim boot. They think they have the right to kill or harass anyone. A theocracy will eventually kill or harass everyone.

  2. anon,

    excellent point. so if sharia only applies to muslims why do christians get arrested for blasphemy? why do muslims get upset about non-muslims depicting muhammad?

    cartoon a day sounds like a plan. maybe they will get riot fatigue.

  3. “Salmon Rushdie’s lackluster book” what? i thought it won awards? a friend of mine read it while he was at princeton. he thought it was good. i’ll have to consult wiki.

    “In the United Kingdom, the book received positive reviews. It was a 1988 Booker Prize Finalist (losing to Peter Carey’s Oscar and Lucinda) and won the 1988 Whitbread Award for novel of the year.[2]”

    the muslims have been easily provoked for a long time now.

    “After the Satanic Verses controversy developed, some scholars familiar with the book and the whole of Rushdie’s work, like M. D. Fletcher, saw the reaction as ironic. Fletcher wrote “It is perhaps a relevant irony that some of the major expressions of hostility toward Rushdie came from those about whom and (in some sense) for whom he wrote.”[5] He said the manifestations of the controversy in Britain “embodied an anger arising in part from the frustrations of the migrant experience and generally reflected failures of multicultural integration, both significant Rushdie themes.”

    and it appears multiculturalism has been failing for a long time now too.

  4. Back in the bad old days in USSR one could not criticize/cartoon Stalin either.

  5. If Islam can’t withstand cartoons, it can withstand nothing. It should be flushed down the toilet immediately.

  6. Anon,

    Sharia applies to Muslims and their interactions with non-Muslims. So, what’s wrong with Khomeini placing a death edict on Rushdie? I, however, don’t agree with Khomeini. Why put death edict on a dirty scum like him? But regarding the fact that Rushdie was a Muslim, that may have some validity.


    Why does the West get angry when someone criticises the Holocaust or Israel. Just because Holocaust is the West’s crime? Why punish Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Mark Owen? Are not they exercising their “Freeom of Speech”?

    The zeal of the Crusades has never died. Sir William Hunter in his book “The Indian Muslims” wrote that the European traders journeyed to the Muslim lands with their crusading spirit upheld and they were not traders barely. And ultimately they succeeded to avenge the defeats at crusades. Nicola Manuci, Bernier, Joao De Barros, Tavernier, Ralph Fitch were not travellers. They were spies. Aside from travelling, they also explored the intriguants among Hindus and Muslims alike, sought their help in bringing the Muslim rule down. They were also involved in forceful baptising. After the capture of Jerusalem in WW1, French General Henri Goraud came to the tomb of Saladin, kicked the tomb and said “Saladin, we are back.” The cultural and religious crusades continue to this day.


    Well, many people have tried to do it before. But they all failed. Even today, there has been no shortage to do that. But what are the results? Nothing. Understand you BDSM pig?

    May be Muslim are intolerant of such heinous cartoons. And there are certain reasons to be. When you know that your acts will hurt someone and anger will manifest, why do you do that? When a Muslim pig named M F Hussain drew obscene pics of Hindu Goddess Saraswati, he was forced to leave India and died abroad. I do not support Hussain drawing such hideous pics, especially hurting the religious sentiments of others and involving a female. But will you dare do that same thing with Jews as has been done with Muslims? No. Because, in that case, your holes will be stuffed with swarms of African killer bees and driver ants.

  7. Dongo, there is no need to do the same thing with Jews. Jews have been depicted in a number of unflattering ways and to my knowledge they have not killed anyone over it. In fact it seems that about every religion in the world has the ability to ignore criticism or some lampooning without going on a mass murder spree. What a French General said or did in WWI has nothing to do with the Crusades or the spirit of the Crusades coming back. I and many others do not get angry when you deny the Holocaust or talk badly about Jews. When you do so it just demonstrates ignorance and everyone is free to have their views. However, I do not want to be stabbed, killed, beat, mutilated, or whatever because I disagree or talk badly about Islam or its prophet. My speech may show ignorance but it does not warrant violence.

    As to the suggestions written within this story, I agree. We simply need to keep publishing things that make fundamentalists Muslims angry till they no longer have the ability to get people to respond. I never even thought about burning a Koran or even discussing Mohammad until Muslims made it an issue with Danish cartoonist or Rushdie with his book. After Muslim reaction to these events I thought it incumbent for people to make a stand. If you believe in free speech then you certainly cannot back down.

  8. dongo,

    “Why does the West get angry when someone criticises the Holocaust or Israel.” well first america doesn’t. we don’t have a “no holocaust denial” law. and it is a stupid law in the european countries which have it. but by get angry what do you mean? they speak out against it? that is a far cry from calling for someone’s death, or burning down embassies and actually killing four people. your attemps at relative comparisons is stating to make me worry about your skills as a lawyer.

    “Why punish Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Mark Owen? Are not they exercising their “Freeom of Speech”?” don’t know you mark owen is, was he was part of wiki leaks? as for bradley, he was in the military. when you signup for the military you actually surender some freedom of speech. the uniform code of conduct actually doesn’t allow you to critizise the commander and chief. but in this case he was releasing classified document. that’s not protected speech. it’s subordination and possibly treason. not all speech is can’t slander people. and even in the private sector you can’t publish trade secrets. if i worked for apple and had the designs for the iphone. i can’t post it on the internet and claim freedom of speech. seriously i’m starting to question your intelligence? as for assange, he is not an american and i’m against charging him with anything.

    “Sharia applies to Muslims and their interactions with non-Muslims” so a non-muslim can be charged with blasphemy?

    rushdie is an atheist. why would you say he is muslim?

  9. jump down to 4.

    “In 1978 Willis Carto founded the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) as an organization dedicated to publicly challenging the commonly accepted history of the Holocaust”

  10. checkout arab world and types of reactions. i looks like people deny the holocaust all the time. i don’t see any riots or murders mentioned. so again what do you mean by “get mad”. certainly no one goes into a “muslim type rage”?

  11. Criley,

    Yes, they have not. But there are things they do that may be as deadly as putting someone to death, if not more. Even heads of states are not immune from Israeli or their sympathisers’ rage. Think about Mahathir Mohammad, or Ahmadinejad. Both of them have been demonised. That is not limited to these two fellows. Even Jews, who are critical of Israel or the Holocaust, are termed as subversive, leftist, politically correct, even anti-Semite. Pathetic!

    O, is it so? I must need glasses. There were many other graves in Jerusalem. Do you need a doctorate from Harvard to understand that on the Muslim side, Saladin was the leading one and on the Christian side, there were Franks leading. British General Allenby, to honour the holy city, walked barefooted into there. He neither honoured nor dishonoured Saladin. But what Goraud did is a reminder of the crusading spirit. If not, why did he do and said those?

    Yes, some people may do that out of ignorance but what have been done with our Prophet, are not ignorance. They deliberately are doing these. Just look at the recent video clip where the “filthmaker” elucidated his intentions. If that is freedom of speech, that freedom should be repeatedly kicked hard in the balls with heavy-spiked boots.
    There is nothing called fundamentalism in Islam and nothing as fundamentalist Muslim. Fundamentalism arose in Christianity. Now it is being placed on Islam and Muslims. Just like the term “Orthodox” is used now to describe Sunni Muslims though “Orthodox” is a major branch of Christian faith. As you say, you need to publish on things that will continue to anger the so-called fundamentalist Muslims, please note that there will be no end to violence. And when you know that a thing will hurt a group of people and thus violence will occur, what is your motive or suggestion behind such a sick idea?

    So, you mean that everyone has the right to insult others in the name of free speech, however indecent that may be? Fine, you wanted people to make a stand, you also got that. But then one thing: the insulted ones also had reacted and got their own stance.

    I do believe in free speech but not hurting others by misusing it. I am a bachelor. If I were married, I would definitely have the rights to fuck my wife. And she would probably have no objection to that. But we would not be allowed to go to the streets and to that in front of the public.

  12. “So, you mean that everyone has the right to insult others in the name of free speech” YES.

    “however indecent that may be?” AND YES.

    “Fine, you wanted people to make a stand, you also got that. But then one thing: the insulted ones also had reacted and got their own stance.” ur funny. put your right to swing your fist ends at the bridge of my nose. you have no right to react violently just because your STUPID ASS MOTHER FUCKING “PROPHET” HAS BEEN INSULTED. MUHAMMAD WAS A BASTARD COCKSUCKER.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>