Yesterday I received this email from an old attorney boss o' mine.
Someone will have to explain to me exactly what it is that the cartoonist got wrong about Islamic extremists who claim that their violence is somehow condoned or required by Allah or Mohammed:
1. Here is a picture of a violent Islamic extremist (attached). He is threatening to use a rocket propelled grenade in the photo. You have seen countless photos like it in which wannabe warriors brandish AK-47’s or swords with which they might behead anyone unlucky enough to offend their sensibilities.
2. Here is the cartoon which depicts Mohammed (although the intent is obviously to depict violent religious fanatics) as a violent extremist (attached, Mohammed with a bomb on his head). Don’t look if you think you might be offended.
3. Here is a crowd of Muslims torching the Danish embassy in a fit of violence after the cartoon was published (attached).
If the point of the riots was to prove that Mohammed was not a violent terrorist and should not be depicted as one, shouldn’t the reaction be peaceful rather than organized worldwide rioting? (I didn’t attach photos of riots in Indonesia or Europe). They must intend to make some other point—namely, that they are extremely violent and will destroy property and endanger lives over a cartoon. Imagine what they would do if something important like geopolitical power were involved.
It seems to me that the cartoonist did a fair job of illustrating the incongruity of associating Mohammed with violence, but then this dangerous worldwide group of fanatics managed to tie Mohammed more closely than ever with violence, disrespect, and ill repute than anything the cartoonist did.
I thought it was an interesting take on the situation.