Reader Scandinavian infidel last night sent me this story, in which the Muslim Public Affairs Council of the UK calls upon Muslims to protest an illustration in a book:
“It has been brought to our attention that a British company has published the above ‘portrait’ of Allah’s last prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him) to illustrate the topic of Shariah in their book, ‘The History of Punishment’. Why would anyone paint the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) surrounded by naked women?! Why have they chosen to cause so much hurt to Muslims? Is a tiny bit of respect really too much to ask?”
No, not really. I am not in favor of insults to anyone’s religion. But I could do an Internet search right now and find thousands of insults to mine, and no one would take me seriously if I set out to get them all removed: America and Britain are, at least at this point, pluralistic societies, in which freedom of speech has a long history. If everything that insulted someone else were banned, what would remain of that freedom?
MPAC also includes a bit of saber-rattling: “This picture is possibly the most disgusting insult against our prophet since ‘The Satanic Verses’ was published. This humiliation will not stop while most Muslims remain too pacified to lift a finger to stop this.”
The Satanic Verses drew a death sentence that sent Salman Rushdie into hiding for years. Is that the sort of response that MPAC would like to see to this “humiliation”?
In any case, I see in LGF that like a good dhimmi, the publisher immediately agreed. “The company’s representatives have said that the portrait was unwittingly reproduced, without the realisation that it would cause offence. Negotiations are currently underway to resolve the matter – Amber will be placing a statement on its website.”