All of the appeasers, and at least a few of the agitators, in the comment section of this post at Samizdata (h/t: Wretchard) are missing the point. When the author refers to the editors of UK periodicals who refuse to publish the cartoons as "craven" he doesn't have in mind a matter of whether they're worried about "offending religious believers," because things have gone far beyond that. What he means is that these editors are so far behind the curve that they believe it's still a matter of giving or taking offense. They're craven because they fail to recognize that there's no legitimate moral or ethical ground standing between "I am Spartacus" and the illegitimacy of "discretion is the better part of valor." With one possible exception, discretion is cowardice and foolishness.

That exception? There's something largely missing from this debate, because there would seem some ground upon which principled Muslims might have stood. They could have made the argument that the Danish cartoons could not have depicted The Prophet, regardless of the intent, but must have been of a False Prophet honored by Al Qaeda and the Salafists. What does it mean that most of the Ummah assumes Al Qaeda honors Muhammed? Are there any Muslims with the view that the controversy is over a False Prophet and a false Islam? Maybe the few who take this position need an amplifier to be heard over the "street din?" Come to think of it, giving those Muslims a larger voice might still be the better part of valor.

(Cross-posted to Demosophia and The Jawa Report)

Posted by: Demosophist at 09:18 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.