by Robert Spencer
….An Islamic State e-book, Black Flags for Rome, sketches out a scenario in which Islamic State partisans sow murder and mayhem on the streets of Europe and America. It contains advice on how to obtain weapons and instructions on how to build bombs.
In the face of this threat, which is only growing, is not being “provocative” really going to accomplish anything?
When the Islamic State boasts of the West’s societal and cultural weakness, is it really wise to give them another example of it?
But why add fuel to the fire? Precisely because the jihadis have threatened to kill those who draw Muhammad, and made good on that threat in January in the Paris offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine. To stop drawing Muhammad in the face of these threats and violence will only send the signal that threats and violence work — and that will bring even more threats and violence.
Drawing Muhammad is a crime in Islamic law, not in American law. To refrain from doing so is to accept the authority of Islamic law even over non-Muslims — which is exactly what the jihadis are trying to assert. No wonder they think we’re weak.
King is right that drawing Muhammad is “insulting someone’s religion.” But it is the murderous jihadis who made this question the flash point of the defense of the freedom of speech, not Pamela Geller and I. It is they who, by their determination to murder those non-Muslims who violate their religious law on this point, have made it imperative that free people signal that they will not submit to them. If we give in to the demand that we conform to this Sharia principle, there will be further demands that we adhere to additional Sharia principles. It is ultimately a question of whether we will submit to Sharia, or stand up for freedom.
At Garland we were standing. In the aftermath, it is clear that a huge segment of the Western political and media elites are ready, if not eager, to kneel, not daring to “provoke” their new masters.