A very common expression in the English language is that one cannot have it both ways.  It is a way of saying that there are limits imposed by the framework of our endeavors.  The classical example of this has to do with the way in which people carry themselves.  For example, a member of the clergy who wants to be respected as such cannot spend all of his time hanging out with the boys and doing what they do.  He cannot have it both ways.

Here is a different example.  As a professor, I cannot hang out with my undergraduate students, attend their parties and social functions, get drunk with them, flirt with them, and so on, and then really expect them to respect me in the classroom as their professor.  They have their space and I have mind.  That is the way it should be; and that is the way that it has to be if I want my students to respect me.  I cannot have it both ways.

There is no end to examples of this sort, which brings me to Islam and the cartoons published in a Danish newspaper.

The history of Islam is full of claims about holy wars.  Indeed, even now one holy war after another is declared against the West, especially the United States.  Foremost among those who have declared a jihad against the United States is Osama Bin Laden.  In any case, the point is that these wars are declared in the name of Islam, and so in the name of the Prophet Mohammed. 

Endless suicide bombings and killings of individuals known to be innocent, such as children on a school bus, have justified, and continue to be justified, in the name of Islam, and so the Prophet Mohammed. 

Well, the problem is simply this: Radical Muslims cannot have it both ways.  They cannot invoke Islam, and so the Prophet Mohammed, whenever they wish to justify an act of violence without inviting caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed as a purveyor of violence. 

This obviously, is not just a point against Islam.  Violence has also been committed in the name of Jesus, as the Crusades remind us.  And if the overwhelming majority of Christians had continued to commit violence in the name of Jesus, it would be perfectly natural for there to be the appearance of caricatures of Jesus as a purveyor of violence. 

Nowadays, of course, one does not speak of Christianity and violence in the same breath.  Accordingly, radical Christians who kill abortion doctors in the name of Jesus are readily seen for what they are: lunatics who are at the fringes of Christianity. 

The simple truth is that there is a very real sense in which the image of Jesus is inescapably tied to the behavior of the major figures in modernity who present themselves as Christians.  From Martin Luther King, Jr. to Mother Theresa to Pope John-Paul II, the ambassadors of Jesus have in modern times have presented themselves as strong and courageous—but never violent.  Most certainly not individuals who were quick to find an excuse to kill.

With Islam, things seem to be the exact opposite.  At the drop of a hat, a holy war can be declared over something or the other.  For all I know, this may be an abuse of the religion of Islam.  But this does not change the fact that an awful lot of well-placed imams seem to declare jihad over one thing or another, where this is thought to justify taking the other’s life even if the other is a mere child on a school bus. 

What can I say?  Islam cannot have it both ways.  It goes without saying that the picture accompanying this paragraph is disrespectful of the Prophet Mohammed.  And I do not want either to justify or to excuse it.  Yet, insofar as we pass around blame here, then I fear that adherents of Islam must shoulder some of the blame as well.  

Non-Muslims will have no more respect for the Prophet Mohammed than the adherents of Islam have for him.  And when non-adherents continually see key figures of Islam invoke Mohammed as a justification for violence whenever Muslims do not have their way or they do not like an outcome, then the Prophet of Mohammed, far from being presented to non-Muslims as a pillar of righteousness for all, is presented to the non-Muslim as none other than a puppet for violence whose strings are pulled at will by Muslim leaders.  The point of the image the camel, then, is not that the Prophet Mohammed is the backside of a camel, but that in view of the way in which Muslims invoke him it is as if he were.  At least, this is a very plausible interpretation of the image. 

Fear is one thing.  Moral respect is another.  If Muslims want the Prophet of Mohammed to be respected, then they need to re-make his image.  If at the slightest provocation by non-Muslims, the Prophet Mohammed can be invoked to justify murder and mayhem against these unbelievers, then the Prophet will be seen as he has been fashioned.  Feared, perhaps.  Respected, no.   On the other hand, if non-adherents of Islam see time and time again that the Prophet of Mohammed is invoked to garner restraint and good will, then he will be regarded accordingly.  Islam cannot have it both ways.  No religion can.

I am frequently told that Islam is a peaceful religion.  Funny, I cannot seem to remember the last time I heard that Muslims went out of their way to give in order to help those who are suffering, be they Muslims or not.  Regrettably, Muslims have been masterful at exploiting blacks in the United States.  However, I do not recall ever hearing talk about a Muslim equivalent to the Salvation Army in Europe or Asia or Africa.  On the other hand, the image with which I led this blog entry strikes me as common enough: Threats and more threats whenever there is something disliked.  And that makes all this talk about showing respect for the Prophet Mohammed seem awfully disingenuius.  More like: Do as I say and pay no attention to what I do.  And that, alas, is just the problem.  Presumably, the Prophet Mohammed did not teach that violence is the solution to every problem.  But a great many of his visible adherents are teaching just that lesson.  So if I may mockingly ask:  Given all their talk about violence in the name of Islam, what on earth could they expect us naive infidels to infer about the Prophet Mohammed?  That he is the Prince of Peace?  I think not. 

You want me to see your Prophet, be he Moses or Jesus or Mohammed, as righteous?  Well, try being righteous yourself ! ! !

On the other hand, if Muslims keep telling all the world that suicide bombers have 70 virgins awaiting them in heaven,  then Muslims shall have to understand that the thought embodied in the adjacent cartoon is apt to cross a great many minds.  Notice that it does not occur to Christians to make a similar claim on behalf of martyrs, of which there have been many.  And no one thinks to conjure up an image of Jesus making such a claim.  This is no accident, as there is nothing about Christinianity and the interpretations of its adherents that would incline anyone to have such a thought.  There is another expression in English that is very apt here: One reeps what one sows.  It is time for Islam to take a reality check.