The first is the visit by Israeli minister of security Itamar Ben-Gvir to the Temple Mount.
The second is the publicizing of the removal of an instructor at Hamline University for including depictions of Mohammed in his art history course.
In both cases, nobody did anything wrong by any reasonable metric:
- Even though many would say that he has the right to pray on Judaism's holiest site, Ben-Gvir did not. He did exactly what tens of thousands of Jews and hundreds of thousands of Christians have done in 2022 and earlier - he took a quiet stroll on the Temple Mount, without even reporters. There was no violation of the (illusory) status quo.
- In the case of Hamline University, the instructor told the class ahead of time - in both the syllabus and verbally - that two medieval images of Mohammed, painted by Muslims, would be shown to the class, and he gave any Muslims the opportunity to not look at them.
In both cases, there is no consensus that even Islamic law was violated:
- Noor Dahri, a religious Muslim and counterterrorism expert, tweeted, "The rule to allow only Muslims to pray in Makkah is conditioned by the Holy Quran, however such conditions dsn’t apply to the Temple Mount. Islam doesn’t forbid Jews to worship at the Temple Mount, [just a] political agreement which is called “Status Quo”. It is nothing but racism and religious discrimination against the Jewish people. Jews can freely worship at the Temple Mount according to Islamic rules because the land belongs to them, not Muslims - it’s only holy to Muslims."
- Muslims have included Mohammed in their own artwork for centuries, and Shiites do it today. And while mainstream Sunni Islamic law nowadays is against Muslims creating such depictions, it does not (and cannot) say that non-Muslims cannot create or view such pictures.
In both cases, ignorant Westerners who should be supporting freedom and equality are in the forefront of quashing that exact freedom in order to avoid hurting the feelings of irrational, potentially violent Muslims:
- State Department spokesman Ned Price repeatedly said in response to Ben-Gvir's visit that the US supports the "status quo," implying that the visit violated it and was "provocative:" "We oppose any unilateral actions that undercut the historic status quo. They are unacceptable.... it’s absolutely critical that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric, and preserve that historic status quo at Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, both in word and in practice....We’re deeply concerned by any unilateral actions because – precisely because they have the potential to exacerbate tensions, or worse. "
- Hamline University issued a statement claiming, falsely, that what the instructor did violated Islamic law: "Students do not relinquish their faith in the classroom. To look upon an image of the prophet Muhammad, for many Muslims, is against their faith." But it is not at all clear that Islamic law addresses viewing such depictions, only creating them. And as mentioned, the Muslim students could have chosen not to view them.
These are perfect examples of "proleptic dhimmitude," where Westerners act (often beyond what Muslims demand) in fear of anticipated Islamic responses that had not even occurred.
This illustrates the real unwritten law that has increasingly dominated the West: "Don't piss off the Muslims." All of the moral posturing about "tolerance" and "status quo" are fig leaves to obscure the fact that Westerners live in fear of Islamic terror, and are willing and even anxious to give up on our own freedoms to pander to the most extreme Muslim positions, human rights be damned.
By using the yardstick of banning anything that is "provocative," the West is allowing the most intolerant and violent Muslims to dictate Western behavior in all aspects of life. Because anything and everything can provoke Islamists.
Because in both cases the dhimmified Westerners are giving a green light for extremist, potentially violent Muslims to expand their demands ad infinitum:
- Palestinians do not only claim that Jews are violating their feelings by visiting the Temple Mount, but the Western Wall as well - which they also consider part of the "Al Aqsa complex." In fact, every single Jewish holy site, from the Tomb of the Patriarchs to Rachel's Tomb to Joseph's Tomb and scores of others - are all claimed by Palestinians to be Muslim shrines. If Israel gives in to western pressure on abandoning Jewish rights, it wouldn't be the end - it would be only the start of the bigoted, antisemitic demands that Jews have no rights in Israel altogether.
It isn't hard to picture that as only the beginning, not the end. Imagine a world where every website, every encyclopedia, every outing, every college course, every newspaper article and indeed every activity must be approved by extremist Islamic gatekeepers. We've already seen most Western media refuse to print the Mohammed cartoons from Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, even though they are undoubtedly newsworthy and important to see to understand the story. But that and similar incidents are exactly what is driving today's cowardice: the fear of pissing off Muslims, because they might murder you.
Jews will only write angry letters, so offending them is "free speech" and "brave." Muslims might kill you, so submitting to their dictates is twisted into "tolerance."
Unless there is serious pushback by those who still value freedom, this is where things are going.
