Bible bashing is easy, but would artists touch Islam?

iansand says:

07:19am | 24/07/09

It has not always been OK to critique the Bible.  No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Eric says:

07:59am | 24/07/09

Most ‘socially conscious’ artists are cowards. They won’t make shocking attacks on people who might actually bite back.

Chris says:

08:13am | 24/07/09

Whoever put that lame bible bashing exhibition needs to be poked repeatedly with soft cushions. And if I believed in the death penalty i’d be picketing for the comfy chair with NO biscuits.

M Klitzke says:

08:29am | 24/07/09

What a shame people who have so little in terms of vocabulary, thought, intelligence and hope have been given an opportunity to vent their spleen on the one document which could answer all their problems and bring them peace, love and truth.

Most people who deride the Bible have never read it.  Perhaps if they took the time….....................

RT says:

09:15am | 24/07/09

I dunno why no-one parodies or criticises the Koran, Leo. Why don’t you show us how it’s done?

FFT says:

09:16am | 24/07/09

The difference is modern christians are either indifferent or too cowardly to do anything to protect the sanctity of their holiest text.  Collectively if they all stood up and said this sort of exhibitionism was not on then I think “artists” like this might be a little bit more sensitive and respectful of christian beliefs.

Its easy to point at artists and critics of christianity and say “do this to other religions, I dare you” but that doesn’t change the fact that christians still refuse to defend their faith.

Elaine says:

09:28am | 24/07/09

To FFT….what can Christians do to defend their text better?

We take a cvilized approach and appeal to the artists’ manners…but short of that we accept that we live in a society with freedom of speech….I just wish people understood that living with ‘freedom of speech’ means that we have a responsibility not to defame or mock others.

bart says:

10:50am | 24/07/09

Elaine, i think freedom of speech means precisely the opposite - as a democracy we have a responsibility to ask the hard questions of any absurd belief system that worships an omni-present, all powerful deity which seems to have no problem letting newborn children starve in the desert

irfan says:

11:07am | 24/07/09

You should go to Muslim countries and see how Muslims themselves parody Muslim religious symbols and religious figures. It’s not often done in English as it would be less effective to do so in countries where few people speak English. And almost always it goes unpunished.

I grew up hearing blasphemous jokes about Pakistani military dictators, often told by the most religious uncles sporting beards that would make ZZ Top proud.

Elaine says:

11:17am | 24/07/09

To Bart,

I’m a bit confused by your comment…of course we would need to criticize that!

There is a difference between asking questions and mocking or being defamatory

stephen says:

11:18am | 24/07/09

Where’s God, you say ? Where’s Art, I say.

Elaine says:

11:19am | 24/07/09

With respect irfan…making fun of Pakistani military dictators is hardly making fun of Islam

davido says:

11:33am | 24/07/09

No. But Christianity is big enough to embrace criticism.

Joe says:

12:11pm | 24/07/09

Artists who aim to shock and create scandal through their work are ultimately reflecting their own internal sense of helplessness, chaos and discontent.  All humans suffer from more or less self-defeating inclinations and behaviours, although many strive to overcome these in a belief that doing so will bring them greater peace.  Others give-in and yet never truly find peace in their submission.  This often leads to an internal discontent which can express itself in anger towards that which proclaims that true peace is possible, but that some behaviours are of themselves irreconcilable with this peace.  Art which seeks to destroy or tear down that which is sacred to Christianity doesn’t do so because of any genuine intellectual disagreement.  Vandalism of this sort always reflects the internal state of the artist.  It is they for whom we should feel pity.

AT says:

12:11pm | 24/07/09

Hey Leo, care to explain WHY these wanker artistes should bash “another religious text, say the Koran” instead of the bible? Why should these Scottish pillocks in a western secular country, where the bible is the pre-eminent sacred text, focus their artistic pretensions on the text of a “faraway” religion?

Why not the Bhagavad Gita? The Torah? Aboriginal rock art?

It’s the Catholic Church that has raised the issue of Christianity versus Islam. Why do you suppose they’ve done so? Why do you so readily jump on their bandwagon?

Are the Catholics arguing their brand of worship is superior, more tolerant, less deserving of criticism than those swarthy Muslims? It can’t be that they are simply defending THEIR faith or expressing outrage at the defiling of THEIR holy book because they would never have sullied the argument by raising the spectre of a competing religion.

Bible bashing might be easy, but spewing out this calculated tabloid hysteria is even easier.

M Klitzke says:

12:20pm | 24/07/09

Bart - you are one of whom I speak. Never having read the Bible you stand in judgement of your Creator and try to insult HIm, if it were at all possible that a mere man could put one tiny dent in who He is and His Truth.  You box at shadows. Having never read the Bible you have rely on what you hear, see and think you know which sadly is precious little. You are missing the real truth. Could I encourage you to look beyond the limited extent of your own ego. You have much to gain and zero to lose.

I agree with those who say we Christians do not stand up for our Bible against the ignorant comments of the ill-informed.  But then we are called to “turn the other cheek” and we are told “love covers a multitude of sins” - because ours is a personal relationship with our Lord not just a man-made religion we can know nothing will tear down our faith and knowledge.  Our Lord is much more than His Book that tells us about Him.well I guess that is what sets Christianity apart from other religions.
We serve a loving, forgiving Lord who gave His life to redeem HIs creation. A mystery to the unbeliever, but sooooooo attainable for anyone. It is not about churches, or denominations or man-made rules. It is so much more. Bart - you miss the best part. I wish you well.

SD says:

12:48pm | 24/07/09

well the news today is that Ireland is having a new blasphemy law.

pete says:

12:48pm | 24/07/09

the bible, what can you say, written by people who believed the earth was flat

Chris says:

12:49pm | 24/07/09

@ AT

I’m starting to wonder if you even read this piece at all.

And “tabloid hysteria”? No need to get hysterical mate.

Guy Podmore says:

12:55pm | 24/07/09

Good piece, Leo.

We all know the answer to your question, and we all know the delicious irony of how the ‘religion of peace’ would react to such a juvelile provovation. Much wiser (albiet less ballsy) to go for the soft target.

@ davido:
Christianity is only “big enough to embrace criticism” insofar as its power today is (happily) much diminished relative to the rest of civil society. Try pulling this stunt even a couple of hundred years ago in many places in Europe and see what happens.

irfan says:

01:11pm | 24/07/09

Elaine, people make fun of religious symbols, of religious personalities, not just military dictators. They poke fun at religion.

Maybe you should invest some money in a book of Mulla Nasruddin jokes. Let’s not paint the cultures of 1.2 billion people in a certain light using the actions of some crazed morons. Sheik Rupert bin Murdoch might think all Muslims have genetic defects from marrying their cousins, but we don’t.

irfan says:

01:19pm | 24/07/09

Did you hear the one about General Zia scaring Allah on the Day of Judgment? Or how about the mullah’s stupid remark during a marriage sermon?

I think perhaps some of these jokes need to be translated from Arabic and Urdu and Bengali and Farsi and Bahasa Indonesia and Turkish etc etc into English and spread around.

Kate says:

01:26pm | 24/07/09

Eric: “Most ‘socially conscious’ artists are cowards. They won’t make shocking attacks on people who might actually bite back.”
Eric is about the only commenter who has answered, albeit softly, the question put forward.

FFT: “The difference is modern Christians are either indifferent or too cowardly to do anything to protect the sanctity of their holiest text”.
So FFT- are you suggesting Christians use violence in such situations, as Muslims do?

Bart is absolutely correct in so far as Freedom of Speech includes the right to criticise, and even lampoon religion. There is no such thing as “The Right to not be Offended”. I’m offended by the exhibition- but I can’t demand that it’s my right to have my views/ beliefs/sensitivities “respected”. (This may seem obvious, but I live in Canada where there has been much debate recently about the roles of Human Rights Commissions protecting the “rights” of minority groups- in particular, Muslims- to not have their religious sensitivities “offended”.)

AT: “Hey Leo, care to explain WHY these wanker artistes should bash “another religious text, say the Koran” instead of the bible?”

What a ridiculous question. Leo asked a basically rhetorical question, and then AT spews forth this dreck. AT- you are the hysterical one here.

Leo- thanks for having a pair. I think people are getting really tired of tip-toeing around Muslim sensitivities. Death-fatwas, fire-bombing embassies and throat-slitting are all very effective in encouraging individuals and the media to self-censor, which is what you see everywhere now.

Yes- “brave” artists producing works such as “Piss Christ”, and playwrights depicting Jesus in a gay relationship with Judas, abound.

Try the same sort of thing with reference to Mohammed, and see where that lands you! 

For people to suggest otherwise is just shere intellectual dishonesty.

Kate says:

01:43pm | 24/07/09

Sorry- not only Eric, but Guy Podmore (in the time I was writing a very long comment) pointed out the same thing (in less than 10 words): “Much wiser (albiet less ballsy) to go for the soft target.” Exactly..

Grayson Perry- a British artist who has frequently used Christianity as the subject of work- including one which “depicted a teddy bear being born from a penis as the Virgin Mary”- at least answers the question honestly.

Perry says: “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will SLIT MY THROAT. Even what seems an innocuous image (in Islam) might trigger off a really violent reaction so I just play safe all the time.”

Helen says:

02:44pm | 24/07/09

Irf: Actually, people in countries where Islam is practiced do mock their own religion, all the time.

The Plain people of the Punch: [Sticking fingers in ears] La-la-la-la! We can’t hear youuuu!

Oh, tabloid news forums. Don’t ever change!

Helen says:

03:05pm | 24/07/09

...Also, isn’t the general feeling of Western Superiority among the US/Aus/UK/Euro population based on the fact that we had the Enlightenment, and are above Medieval Superstition? Yet if one of us mocks our own chosen sky fairy, the screams are deafening!

Double standards much?

Joe says:

03:21pm | 24/07/09

Fear or retaliation for criticising Islam is real… however, there is more to why artists attack sacred Christian things.  Islam does not, at least in the West, spread a spiritual message.  Therefore, it does not gnaw at the internal discontent of so many including artists who feel helpless against their own self-defeating inclinations.  Anyone who seriously studies Islam and Christiantiy would find quickly that Christianity is far more demanding in what it asks of people with respect to overcoming themselves so as to live a life of peace in themselves and charity towards God and others.  Many don’t believe in truth, however, the actions of artists who attack Christianity under the guise of ‘art’ which often disgusts and shocks without offering a single suggestion of any intellectual disagreement indicate through their work that what Christianity teaches and represents really does sting their consciences and souls.  The more passionate these artists become in their anger without offering any intellectual opposition, the louder the shout of the truth that is within them and of which Christianity continues to remind them.

iansand says:

03:24pm | 24/07/09

Helen - Islam had its enlightenment from about the 9th Century to around the 13th century.  Then a conservative, theistic group of people achieved intellectual ascendency and shut it down - the Ash’aris (I think).  A bit like what is happening now with fundie Christians…  Oh no.

Jen says:

03:29pm | 24/07/09

Helen- please take your medication.

Yes- there is a double standard. Whether you call it “sky fairies” or religion, there is a very clear double standard, and that is what Leo has alluded to.

Mock Christianity: Christians will write letters to the editor, or boycott the exhibition.

Mock Islam: Get your head chopped off.

(Despite reassurances from Irf, I have seen only hostile, threatening and murderous responses from Muslims when Islam/ Mohammed/ The Koran is ridiculed.)

By way of illustrating this- and for a good laugh:
http://www.zipperfish.com/toons/yaafm/yaafm-12-muslims/

Very amusing.

Catherine says:

03:32pm | 24/07/09

Well said, Joe.

Every word is spot on.

Thanks.

AT says:

04:17pm | 24/07/09

@Chris

Of course I read the piece, sport. The piece that includes the line; “...if churches choose to handle these incidents with more maturity and tolerance themselves in can serve both as the best advert for their faith and best rebuttal to their critics…”. The same piece that cherry picks the comment from the Catholic Church’s response which “wonders whether the organisers would have been quite as willing to have the Koran defaced” and goes on to make Christianity versus Islam the central tenet of the article.

Leo took a simple little story and hyped a conflict between Christianity and Islam into it where none existed. Typical tabloid hysteria, Chris.

@Kate

Leo may have “asked a basically rhetorical question”, but what’s so dreckish about asking WHY he asks the question? After all, a rhetorical question doesn’t invite an answer, so why shouldn’t I hypothesise about his motivation for publishing this? Secretly, I suspect it was fashioned to draw out demented fundamentalists for some dunderheaded “debate” and, in your case at least, it’s succeeded. Don’t bother disagreeing though, Kate -  it could be a rhetorical statement.

john b says:

04:20pm | 24/07/09

Interesting to see the critics here use the opportunity to “Bible Bash”- apparently without any self-awareness, despite the title of the article.

Yes- Christianity is a safe enemy indeed.

Hence the Atheist Fundamentalist crowd pours derision on Christianity- but their silence is deafening where Islam is concerned.

“AT” is a case in point. He/she also demonstrates complete ignorance about Islam in the UK, by referring to it as a “faraway religion”.  The north of England- the part of the country most densely populated with Muslims- is pretty close to Scotland. Outside of Londonistan that is (where I live).

Just fyi AT- as you clearly have no idea about Muslim demographics in Europe:

john b says:

04:22pm | 24/07/09

Oh- and btw- good piece Leo.

Phil says:

04:33pm | 24/07/09

Leo,
I think an artistic expression that invokes revulsion or any other emotional response in a viewer/listener etc. is still valid, as long as it does not involve exploitation of people. So, even as a christian, I think that my own religion is fair game in the world of art. I’m big enough not to think I know the mind of god well enough to impose myself on others who may have a different opinion. No one knows the mind of god, anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.
You are right though, the same should go for Islam, but when your life is on the line, who would dare?

bitrich says:

05:07pm | 24/07/09

Irfan, how about you tell us the jokes in English, and when we don’t laugh Keyser Trad can tell us that they were mistranslated.

Kate says:

05:08pm | 24/07/09

Well, AT- “demented fundamentalists”. The ad hominem cuts so deep, it makes me understand the error of my ways.

“Leo took a simple little story and hyped a conflict between Christianity and Islam into it where none existed”.

No AT- that’s what YOU did.

Leo simply put forward the question, a reasonable one, which points to a glaring double standard.

That is WHY (I’m assuming) he asked the question. There was no hysteria- as Chris pointed out- until you made it so.

Because you’re the type of person who doesn’t want to have to honestly answer that question- as several people have here- you have framed the whole thing in different terms, and tried to ask a different question. Your non sequitur statements and anti-Catholic ranting are just a distraction from the original, very simple question:

Hurling insults at me, changing the topic and becoming “hysterical” doesn’t change any of this.

If you believe the question has no basis except “tabloid hysteria”, AT, why don’t you start an exhibition at which you publicly deface the Koran- for the sake of a social experiment. What have you got to lose?

bazza says:

05:27pm | 24/07/09

enough hysteria hey AT?

lighten up buddy- have a look at the link from jen.

lol funny and so true.

AT says:

05:35pm | 24/07/09

@john b

Yeah, thanks mate. I really needed to be set straight. “The north of England..is pretty close to Scotland”. Wow! Really!? And you live in “Londonistan”? Goodness me.

Those ‘Euro Muslim demographics’ explain everything.

Pity you’ve misrepresented (or misunderstood?) my use of the word “faraway” and the inverted commas which enclosed it. It’s also regrettable that you label me an “Atheist Fundamentalist”  -  if you can enlighten me as to how you drew that conclusion from my “secular” post, I’d be very interested to hear it. Must be those pesky Muslim demographics again.

Guy P says:

05:35pm | 24/07/09

@ john b

Just who are these ‘atheist fundamentalists‘ who are silent on the issue of Islam? I’m yet to read the words of one of those published who fails to see Islam as the larger concern. Sam Harris? Daniel Dennet? Dawkins? Hitchens? I think all four would challenge your claim.

I think many would agree: it’s getting tiresome hearing this vacuous talk of ‘atheist fundamentalism’. There’s no such thing; atheism is based on a negation—it’s merely the sum of noises reasonable people make in the face of nonsense and wishful thinking… completely unsupported by evidence or even good philosophy. It hardly qualifies as a worldview, let alone a fundamentalist one.

kev says:

06:03pm | 24/07/09

Well said, john b: “Atheist Fundamentalism”.

This seems to be emerging as the new “religion”- talk about dogma, moral superiority and self-righteousness. This comments section has a few good examples.

I’m an atheist myself (a secularist would be a better description- and I know plenty of religious folks who are too), but I’ve noticed the high-ground is being taken by a particular sub-group of non-believers of late.

Might borrow the term, if you don’t mind.

Ryan says:

06:15pm | 24/07/09

You will find that innaction is an actual response.  If this was done to the Koran their would be violence, threats and death.  Not so from Christians you will notice.

BW says:

08:57pm | 24/07/09

Yeah great suggestion Leo. While we’re at it, why don’t we really start to mix the pot - lets begin to question other minority faiths in Australia such Hindu’s, Buddhists and Jew’s!

Don’t we want Islamic Australians to feel welcome in Australia? Don’t we want them to integrate happily and enrich our society? I certainly do. How would Koran bashing help or improve the current situation?

More to the point - how would any sort of religion bashing help anyone? How many religious wars have occurred already? Are you really suggesting we perpetuate this by actually considering questioning the Islam faith?

I know if I was part of a minority population I would feel incredibly overjoyed and elated by feeling less comfortable in a country that is dominated by a society who generally misunderstands my culture.

Loi says:

12:35am | 25/07/09

Since all religious texts present little more than extravagant hearsay, I see no problem with “bashing” any of them. In a predominantly Christian country why not choose the bible?! In a Muslim or Buddhist county, do otherwise.
The sooner common sense prevails the better.

Eric says:

08:10am | 25/07/09

Way to miss the point, BW.

Try reading the article and the comments.

Rob says:

10:14am | 25/07/09

The irony of this would not be lost on anyone who knows Glasgow and the West of Scotland is like, especially at this time time of year. In a city so deeply scarred by bitter sectarian hatred, anything that can expose the sheer hypocrisy of these two “Christian” organisations is a good thing.

Leo Shanahan says:

02:22pm | 25/07/09

Thanks for all comments guys. AT I would say your point is well made but it ignores the fact that Islam does have a presence in modern Western society. The shape of Islam today, especially the growth in Islamic terror organisations, is central to a great deal of our debates concerning multiculturalism, foreign affairs, defence and national security. Simply because the West is not Islamic does not mean the religion does not play a role in our society on a series of levels.  Therefore, if contemporary artists see their role as reflecting and criticising aspects of the world in which they live - and I am not suggesting that Christianity is above criticism either - why is there almost no criticism levelled at Islam in contemporary art? Drawing on experiences of the past the fear of violent reprisals, albeit from a minority of Muslims, seems to be the answer.

stephen says:

07:33pm | 25/07/09

10th century, actually, iansand.

AT says:

04:36pm | 26/07/09

Leo, I appreciate you adding further comment. I really wanted to let this go, but a couple of things struck me.

Firstly, I’m well aware of Islam’s presence in the West. Indeed, the area I live in has steadily evolved into an Arabic enclave in recent years, many of the newer residents Muslim. Just last night I was strolling along when a racket of manic ululating, emanating from a house I was passing, startled me. I saw the silhouette of a man at the house’s front door greeting visitors as they came in off the street. One of the visitors, more in befuddlement than anguish, spoke a few words of Arabic as he approached then finished off in English; “...has something happened?” The silhouette, in a broad Australian accent infused with embarrassment and apology, replied “that’s my girls, they do that when we’re losing. I think we’re down 20-18 at the moment.”

I don’t know that they’re Muslim and can’t even be sure of their ethnicity, but here were a couple of Australian girls in a typical Australian suburban home misappropriating a (commonly) Muslim expression of grief to ‘mourn’ the troubles of an Australian rugby league team. (It was shortly after 7pm in Sydney, should anyone feel compelled to investigate which team it might have been).

It’s easy to imagine more pious Muslims being outraged at this disrespectful mocking of a sorrowful ritual closely associated with Islam. Should these girls apply for an Arts Council grant to take their show on the road however, they’d have a very strong advocate in me. Mainly because they’d be the funniest show in town, but also because they’d be commenting on THEIR culture. It would be an authentic reflection of THEIR society - they’d be more entitled to make this commentary than others.

Which brings me to my second point and back to my original question; WHY should Western artists (observant or secular) redirect their attentions away from THEIR culture. Sure, Islam has a presence in the West and probably quite close to the Glasgow Gallery of Modern Art, but if it’s anything like my atypically “Muslim” Australian suburb, where there’s one quite small prayer room to the dozen or more monumental Christian churches, Islam would barely register. There’s no proselytising Muslims darkening my doorstep, just Christians. I’m not confronted by Mad Mullahs insisting I observe Ramadan, just zealous Christians insisting I celebrate the “true meaning” of Christmas. There’s way more wanton displays of female flesh in the streets than there are chador clad women. etc etc etc.

And this in an area of higher Muslim “presence” than most - it’s marginal, incidental. It simply does not impact on anyone unless they deliberately choose to focus on it to the exclusion of the broader more accurate picture. Therefore, if I were to make an artistic commentary on Islam it would have very little credibility, but perhaps more than the pale earnest Western pretenders from the bohemian quarter you suggest aren’t “reflecting and criticising aspects of the world in which they live” because they fear violent reprisals. With what authority and integrity could these pompous gits comment on Islam? Certainly less than the playful and loud girls who livened up last night around here.

Not that they should feel inhibited about commenting on whatever takes their fancy, but perhaps they’re exhibiting a level of uncharacteristic self awareness about themselves, THEIR society and their knowledge of the world and deliberately refraining from exploring a subject that is beyond them. Perhaps we should be grateful - any artwork they produce would likely be as insightful and creative as the ideas of this prick:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/film-student-on-offensive-in-campaign-to-find-virgin-20090725-dwst.html

I don’t pretend to have any great understanding of Islam and its political and cultural implications, but I’m pretty sure idly labelling pretentious artists cowards for not attacking the Koran in the same way they attack the bible advances the debate about as much as the effete masterpieces of the artists do.

Pete says:

01:30pm | 03/08/09

Free will, should one choose to deface the physical Bible so be it.  It is not the physical ink but the meaning of the Word that develops the Christian relationship with Christ.  I doubt many who would choose to deface the Bible truly understand who and what it is they are attempting to offend.

Pharmb723 says:

10:36am | 28/08/09

Very nice site!

Faye says:

12:45pm | 28/08/09

If they had read the bible and decided that yes, it is full of bollocks, then by all means, go ahead and deface it, thrash it, smear and taint it with unclean substances and insults - but do it with a clear conscience and full knowledge that this religion is not for you, not out of blind ignorance.
Its so bourgeois to be the fangled new age know-it-all to declare and deride religion - especially the more accommodating ones (try writing and saying things ‘not approved’ of Hindus in India or Muslims in Pakistan and we’ll see if you’re still standing in one piece.).
We all know, we will never be unkind to strangers for fear of retribution and the unknown yet we will talk down to and be rude to our loved ones because we know they will not retaliate.
These deriders of religion are free to their own opinions as we religious people are to ours but they step on Christianity as a matter of novelty on what they know to be a passive religion and not on the ‘stranger’ religions which they know will not be so kind to them.

DG says:

02:46pm | 28/08/09

@M Klitzke (at 08:29am) - I’ve read the bible, both new and old testament - it’s a load of inconsistent codswallop. Some interesting philosophy, rudimentary health advice (see Leviticus, Job and Numbers in their dealing with the “unclean”), an interesting perspective on history and some truly disturbing material in both Genesis and Revelations - but aside from that it doesn’t provide any evidence of the existence of god (I’m sorry but someone writing something in a book hundreds of years ago doesn’t make it true - if it does then Islam, Buddhism, Judaism etc etc are just as valid as Christianity.

On a side note head to church and see how many self-reporting Christians have read the bible (new and old testament) from cover to cover - I recently did exactly this (as a matter of curiosity - I attended my in-laws church for this purpose). Only 3 out of the 40 or so present had read the whole thing and all three were over 65. The vast majority have NEVER read from the bible on their own initiative.

Having said that: The reason that the western world criticises Christianity is simple - it’s the prevailing belief in society. Many in the west are not as familiar with Islam and other religions. It would be remiss to ignore the fact that Scientology get quite a bit of a abuse also (until it goes around litigating against people who mention OT III).

The reason that Islam doesn’t get a run (in terms of criticism) is very well summed up by Christopher Hitchens in an article that I recently read. He lists a number of things that are prohibited in Islam, including images of their alleged prophet:

“Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.”

He is pointing out that the true reason that Islam is not the subject of criticism is that they are still at the crusades phase of religious development and liberalism (after all Islam started 200-500 years after Christianity)

Basher says:

03:15pm | 28/08/09

I can’t speak for the artists, merely for myself. I don’t have much to say about the Koran because I don’t know much about it.

On the other hand, I have plenty of criticism to level at the bible because I’ve read it. Cover to Cover, contrary to Mr Klitzke’s beliefs. I would assume those who attempt to highlight the shortcomings of the so called holy text are doing so from an educated and knowledgable point of view on the matter.

I don’t know if the Koran is as littered with the same examples of slavery, racism, sexism and human rights abuses as the bible, nor their specifics. That makes it hard for me to pass judgement, violence or not.

DG says:

03:53pm | 28/08/09

In the interests of intellectual honesty - Hitchins does not make the like between Islam and the crusades that was my own take on why Islam is at that phase now, while Christianity has moved to a more liberal approach.

Hitchins went no further than observing that the media tend to bend over backwards to avoid upsetting Muslims because of the Islamic track record with respect to threats and physical violence towards any that dare to question the basis of their faith.