Time Brings Submission Home

A Paris humor magazine called Charlie Hebdo last week produced an edition which was a satirical look at the Arab Spring, purporting to celebrate the victory of Islamists in the Tunisian elections. The cover depicted the prophet Mohammed saying "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter." Reaction from the religion of peace was quick in coming.

On Charlie Hebdo's website one humorless Muslim posted: "You keep abusing Islam's almighty Prophet with disgusting and disgraceful cartoons using excuses of freedom of speech. Be God's curse upon you." Islamists know that actions speak louder than words. So rather than wait for God's curse, the next day the offices of the magazine were firebombed. The premises were completely destroyed. The editor of the magazine said: "We can’t put out the magazine under these conditions. The stocks are burned, smoke is everywhere, the paste-up board is unusable, everything is melted, there’s no more electricity."

Just another day in Islamic paradise. But the story that brings the issue of submission to Islamic threats comes not from the Paris newspapers, which roundly condemned the attack. It comes from the Paris editor of Time Magazine. Like our own South Park, Charlie Hebdo is an equal opportunity offender. It has done similar "special editions" on Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and other lesser known sects. Nary a peep from Time. But when the magazine spoofed Islam (it called the special edition Charia Hebdo, a play on the word sharia), and got firebombed for its efforts, Time rushed to the defense of--the firebombers.

Just as many members of the Dutch press reacted to the murder of Theo van Gogh after his production of the anti-Islamist film Submission, Time has basically asked "what did they expect?" The conclusion of the press in the Netherlands then, like the conclusion of Time now, is that one should not make a film or publish a magazine that will outrage devout Muslims and put oneself in harm's way. Put simply, "you deserve it." Once again, vicious thugs are excused and the victims are blamed.

Time was not alone. In the British paper The Guardian, reporter Pierre Haski said: "Muslims in France feel discriminated against and unwelcome." And then came the excuse: "President Sarkozy's interior minister even called the growing Muslim population a 'problem' for France. Islam has become a cultural identity, a refuge in a troubled society where they don't feel accepted." And then he did the inevitable. He compared Muslims living in France today to Jews living in Germany during the Nazi regime. No hint of irony at all. Apparently the Jews were recently-arrived violent thugs who kept upsetting the peace and tranquility of the lovable Nazis.

Not to be outdone, Bruce Crumley of Time brings submission (the real meaning of the word "Islam") to America's shores from his perch in Paris. Says Crumley (as he wipes the spittle off his chin): "Okay, so we can finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by 'majority sections' of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that 'they' aren't going to tell 'us' what can and can't be done in free societies?"

Now, for the excuse: "Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction (emphasis added)?" Lacking the humor gene, much like the Islamists, Crumley then at least makes a half-hearted attempt at discussing the Charlie Hebdo satire issue itself. "The issue of Charlie Hebdo was coarse and heavy-handed--another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam." Ergo, they got what they deserved.

Crumley opines that the firebombing was just the kind of angry response Charlie Hebdo was after in the first place. Yep, that's right. Obviously the magazine wanted its facilities burned to the ground. Its only disappointment was that there was no staff inside to be burned alive along with the building and its contents. At the same Time Magazine which gave a rave review to Broadway's production of The Book of Mormon, a play that satirizes the religion of the Latter Day Saints, there will never be heard a discouraging word about Islam. So far, we have not received any news reports about angered Mormons burning down the Time-Life Building or threatening the life of Time-Warner executives.

Lest you misunderstand Crumley's and Times' true feelings, he does go so far as to say "intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they're committed." But he quickly follows that up with "the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile." You see, "baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well" (emphasis added). That's good logic. You deserve to be killed or your property burned to the ground by "extremists" because you have offended millions of "moderates."

So beware, American Spectator, National Review, Weekly Standard, Commentary, Reason, etc. You have been warned. If you slip from discussion of Islam into satire of any kind, you are in serious danger of violence from Muslim "extremists" standing up for their "moderate" brethren. And even worse, you are in serious danger of Time Magazine editorializing that you deserved it. FYI, the title of the Time article is "Firebombed French Paper Is No Free-Speech Martyr." The online version indicates it was originally entitled: "Firebombed French Paper a Victim of Islamists or Its Own Obnoxious Islamophobia?"