Imagine if Trump had aped Muhammad

All religions are expected to tolerate denigration and insult – except one

You probably won't agree with all of Mr Embery's policy prescriptions, but he will force you to think outside your usual political grooves — Wall Street Journal

I HAVE RECENTLY been reading Joseph Anton, the memoir of Sir Salman Rushdie, the esteemed novelist who, at the back end of the 1980s, infuriated some mullahs in Tehran by having the audacity to produce a work of fiction which, as they saw it, ‘blasphemed’ against their prophet.

The memoir – whose title was the alias adopted by Rushdie during the many years he spent in hiding – provides a captivating and often harrowing account of the daily life of a man living under a death sentence handed down by a despotic foreign government.

The author’s acute frustration at the timidity shown by certain members of the British political and media classes in the face of the bullying theocrats leaps from the pages. Government ministers equivocated; members of parliament in constituencies with sizeable Muslim populations denounced him; ‘liberal’ commentators implied that he had asked for it; the archbishop of Canterbury called for an extension of the Blasphemy Act to cover Islam.

Truth be told, they were petrified. Some may have privately wanted the man with the pen to prevail over those with the swords, but they weren’t willing to put their own necks on the line by publicly expressing solidarity with Rushdie or condemning his persecutors. So they took the path of least resistance.

What is striking from reading the memoir – which, it should be noted, was published before the author was stabbed by an Islamist in New York – is how little the atmosphere has changed in the years since. If anything, it has become even more oppressive. Every now and then, something will occur to prove the point. The hounding of a schoolteacher in Batley. The censoring of an artistic work. The wilful institutional blindness to the activities of rape gangs. The de facto blasphemy laws. The general desperation of the political and cultural elites to delegitimise any criticism of multicultural ideology.

A mood of nervousness still abounds. The elites remain terrified of the potential reaction of certain radical tendencies within the Muslim community to any perceived slight against their religion. And so they abandon the principles of free expression and critical thought in favour of affording to Islam a degree of indulgence and protection that no other faith could possibly hope to enjoy.

Christians, especially, are expected to accept every bit of criticism and mockery that comes their way. Their faith is an easy target, because those who aim for it know they will never be subjected to a fatwa ordering their execution.

When, during the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris in 2024 and before a global audience, the Last Supper was parodied by various crankish characters, including a couple of sexualised drag queens and a transgender model, there were many complaints, including from various Christian organisations. But there was never a hint that anyone involved with the performance would become a target. No threats of violence from Christian groups. No demands for revenge. The story was dead within a few days. Just imagine if the performance had centred instead on, say, the Qur’an story of Muhammad’s journey through the heavens on a winged horse.

Similarly, last week, Donald Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself as Jesus Christ, tending the sick. The post was, like much of Trump’s output these days, in poor taste and caused some prominent Christian voices to publicly object and demand its deletion. But most of Christendom just rolled its eyes and went about its business. Again, no blood-curdling threats to kill or demands for retribution. Though they may have felt slighted, most Christians will have understood that, in democratic and pluralist societies, religious ideas and iconography cannot be protected against insult or lampoonery, and that believers are certainly not permitted to avenge their hurt feelings through violence.

In fairness, many Muslims also understand this and would not dream of persecuting – still less physically attacking – someone who had offended against their religion. And, lest I be accused of being an ‘Islamophobe’ (that awful word), I would point out that I believe there are aspects of the Islamic faith – such as the emphasis on family, community and self-restraint – that are commendable and, far from being ‘anti-British’, chime with the conservative and traditionalist sentiments of many non-Muslims across the country.

But the persistent threat from the faith’s militant elements has caused our weak-kneed political establishment to decide that some kind of special forcefield must be deployed around Islam, and that if anyone is stupid enough to breach it, they must expect the blowback.

Well, not in my name. Islam, regardless of the extreme views of a minority of its followers, must not be ringfenced in such a way, and if sections within it cannot reconcile themselves to that position, they must be confronted and, if necessary, dealt with under the law of the land. No quarter must be given to the bullies and fundamentalists.

There is a scene in the comedy film Alan Patridge: Alpha Papa in which Partridge, the Norfolk-based radio disc jockey, berates his studio sidekick off-mike for having made a rude on-air wisecrack about Islam. ‘Never – never – criticise Muslims,’ barks a flustered Partridge. ‘Only – only – Christians.’ He pauses. ‘And Jews a little bit.’

Yep. That just about sums up where we are.

---

A reminder that you can follow me on ‘X’: @PaulEmbery

---

An edited version of the above piece first appeared on the GB News website.