Islam, Terrorism and Censorship - a Review of a Book Review

Recently I read a book review by Janet Levy. It was about author and Leiden University jurisprudance professor Paul Cliteur's newest book, which refers to a 32 year old German television comedy skit that apparently caused protests by Muslims. Dutch comedian Rudi Carrell was involved, and that marked the beginning of extremely violent protests. As Janet Levy wrote: "Now characteriz[ing] the ongoing conflict between Islamic theoterrorism and Western free speech".

The title of the book is From Incident to Precedent, published by Amsterdam University Press, 2019.

The book's author points out that the Carrell comedy skit was a turning point in global politics. In Levy's words: "It made the West conclude that offending Islam was a global capital offense and it brought about the start of a precipitous decline in Western civil liberties."

Levy indicates that Carrell was born in Holland, became a TV personality in the mid-60s, eventually viewed by 20 million persons. The Ayatollah Khomeini instituted an anti-Western theocracy in Iran strictly bound to Islamic sharia. Carrell produced a skit eight years later of women throwing their underwear at Khomeini's feet, making a joke out of Ayatollah's "command" that Iranian women were required to cover their hair and body shape.

That "hurt the Muslims' feelings all over the world, according to a complaint delivered to the German Government by an Iranian ambassador, and Iran closed two consulates in Germany. Protests were carried out by Iranian command to ground crew, delaying international flights. German diplomats were expelled, and apologies were demanded. As Levy wrote: Carrell received death threats and required police protection".

The German goverment was not to be intimidated (as so many are these days) and although it apologized for what Carrell had done, it had the guts that so many no longer have to clearly point out that Germany was committed to "freedom of the press and artistic expression". Carrell issued a public apology, as he feared for his life (not an unwarranted fear as has been learned by those who have lost theirs).

The German Foreign Ministry apologized for Carrell’s insensitivity but restated the German government’s commitment to freedom of the press and artistic expression. The entertainer feared for his life and issued a public apology, saying he hadn’t meant to “offend the feelings of believers.” He also expressed regret to the Iranian ambassador.

Holland also played the Carrell program but the Dutch Foreign Affairs tried to stop it, contrary to a government non-interference law, because it was concerned about the safety of Tehran-based Dutch citizens.

Cliteur said that appeasing Iran's theocratic dictatorship wondered if bowing to threats by appeasment would "set a precedent for other nations to follow, thereby altering culturally acceptable norms of Western behaviour."

Can a fanatical foreign religious leader set the standards for TV progrmming for a free nation wherein democracy requires freedom of the press, and is the safety of citizens within that free nation compromised? The worst thing imaginable happened, and it happened in the Netherlands. Here is the perfect example, actual events listed by Clieteur and related by Levy in her review:

"In 2004, Theo Van Gogh, an Islamic critic since 9/11, and Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim who denounced Islam’s anti-feminist doctrine, co-produced a film exposing Islam’s subjugation of women. The film, which depicted a veiled actress on whose naked body verses from the Koran were painted, drew praise and anger. A few months later, Van Gogh was shot to death and his body left with messages denouncing Hirsi Ali, Jews, and Western democracies."

So therefore mocking the prophet and criticizing Islam was a capital offence. So who was at fault? Was it Van Gogh for exercising free speech or was it just plain jihadist ideology? The Dutch people were divided on that issue, and that division has been considered as well in other countries.

A further example of the reaction to publication of cartoons of Mohammed occured in the 2005 publication in Jyllands-Posten, causing destruction and the death of over 200 people, which was proof that Islam is a violent terroristic idiology. Cliteur saw it as a warning - a canary in the coal mine.

It's probable that nobody remembers what happened when Salman Rushdie published his novel, The Satanic Verses in 1988. As pointed out by the author, "Khomeini issued a fatwa that included a $1.5 million reward for killing the author." Notwithstanding Rushdie apologizing, his death sentence was not cancelled. There were book bannings, riots and demonstrations in many countries (even New York City) and two Berkeley bookstores were firebombed.

Cliteur wrote that the Rushdie incident "illustrated the contradiction between secular constitutions and Islamic blasphemy laws". Levy wrote that "Cliteur asserts that Rushdie’s critics, primarily multiculturalists, rejected The Satanic Verses based on the interpretations and feelings of others."