It is, perhaps, tragic that the present state of agitation of worldwide Islam and its appeasing acolytes in the West should have been brought about by something as trivial as a series of poorly-drawn and largely unfunny editorial cartoons. Tragic, I fear, because the very triviality of the matter at hand – however violent the consequences – serves to deceive the public as to the true nature of the ongoing conflict and what is at stake in the matter. This wacky conflict (the Cartoon Jihad, if you will) is part of a larger battle – the great clash of civilizations which many have long predicted but which, now, is unfolding before our very eyes. The question here is not the boundaries of public expression, but rather something far more fundamental. It is of if our European cousins are soon to be reduced to a state of abject Dhimmitude: to be made prisoners in their own land. The question is as such: will or will not Europe as we have known it survive the century?

Let’s begin by stating a few very basic facts.

First: the cartoons in question are not offensive in the least. This isn’t really clear in the West because, for the most part, our media has refrained from publishing them (a self-imposed ban now thankfully broken in Canada by the Western Standard). Much of the offense in the Islamic world comes from the fact that, when displayed there, the cartoons have been mixed with ones depicting Mohammed as a pig and accusing him of bestiality and pedophilia. And, I would note, Islam’s own holy sayings provide at least some evidence on the last count (in the story of Mohammed’s marriage to a six year-old girl), though admittedly the account is disputed.

Second: these cartoons are from last September, with the controversy only really starting in the last few weeks. News, it will be recalled, does not travel by Donkey in all of Araby.

What do these facts point to? Simply, they suggest that someone very purposefully brought about this controversy for some reason. Indeed, a number of Danish Moslem leaders traveled the Middle East for some period of time flogging this story before it took. Why?

Did they do it simply for a love of anarchy? It’s possible, but doubtful. In understanding the motives of the people who brought about this controversy, it’s enlightening to understand where these cartoons came from in the first place.

All across Europe, Islamists have been exercising increasing influence over public affairs. The news has been veritably filled with stories of Burger King withdrawing Ice Cream cups because the swirl design on the top looked too much like “Allah” in Arabic according to some hallucinating Mohammedan. Europeans are more likely to respond quickly to complaints by Moslems, even absurd ones, because there’s the very real danger that, if one fails to do so, one will find oneself hacked to death in the streets, as poor Theo van Gogh did when he made a movie about Islam’s treatment of women.

The Danish cartoons came about when it was widely reported that a children’s book (a respectful one, for what it’s worth) about the life of Mohammed had great difficulty finding an illustrator for the simple reason that artists feared that they would become a target for violence if they did the work because some claim that Islam forbids physical depictions of its “Prophet.”

When these cartoons were solicited, it was to respond to a fear that expression about Islam was being censored by the threat of violent reprisal. And, perhaps inevitably, this exercise in freedom of expression and freedom from fear soon became an object lesson in just how violent, and just how absurd, that reprisal could be. But that, my friends, is the very point of the exercise.

In essence, the riots and disturbances are part of a two-front war against freedom of expression on the part of Islam. From one side, the Islamists seek to suppress any criticism of them or their beliefs through the simple expediency of violence against those who express such ungood thoughts. This is the self-censorship which, I’m sorry to report, I would suggest is already pervasive. In certain circles it is already common to hear people express the view that they would like to say something, but do not wish to have their head cut off. From the other side, the Islamists seek to appeal to those who love order more than liberty – those who cannot comprehend that loss of life on either side is worth it over a cartoon and who, holding such convictions, will then seek to suppress offensive material.
And what, you might ask, is the point of this exercise? Well, in the short term, it’s simply to address the growing anti-Islamist backlash in Europe by seeking to suppress expression in opposition to Islamic goals. The end-goal here is to attempt to stigmatize all expression in opposition to Islam as the moral equivalent of anti-Semitism and to see the passage of laws explicitly forbidding the public expression of ideas, words, or images likely to cause offense to Moslems. In short, it is creeping Sharia.

Ultimately, it is the historic ambition of Islam to conquer and convert Europe. The first Islamic invasion was halted by the intervention of Charles Martel. Later, the Crusades (which, contrary to popular perception, were a wholly justified response to westerly Islamic advances) stalled Islam’s march, before it was decisively defeated in the Balkans. The question now is whether Islam will achieve by demography what it could not achieve by the sword.