I don't get it.
Instapundit has linked a couple of times to examples of threats of violence made by Islamists (or in this case, their dhimmi apologists), and then he remarks that it's only a matter if time before other religious groups do the same thing. But, with very few exceptions, other religious groups don't. It's pretty obvious that in the Western world, religiously inspired violence or threat of violence is almost completely owned by Islamic fundamentalists. Not Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, Bahai, Hindus, atheists or anybody else.
Why the repeated question from Glenn? "Will other religious groups take the lesson that violence works?" Who's he talking about here? Lutherans? In May 2007, he wrote: "Sooner or later, you know, fundamentalist Christians are going to pick up on this lesson, engage in similar behavior, and make similar demands. Because, apparently, it works fine." No, other religious groups won't, because other religions aren't that intolerant and brittle, nor do their leaders sanction or incite such violence. Not gonna happen.
Asra Q. Nomani wrote an op-ed for the WSJ today about the decision by Random House to halt publication of a historical novel about Aisha, the Muslim prophet Muhammed's young bride (a child bride, actually). The novel's author, journalist Sherry Jones, came to admire the courage of Aisha. Random House said they decided "to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel."
Who started this brou-ha-ha? "This time, the instigator of the trouble wasn't a radical Muslim cleric, but an American academic." Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin, to be exact. Spellberg contacted Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in her classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, saying the novel "made fun of Muslims and their history." She asked him to "warn Muslims", which he did, sending an e-mail to a listserv of Middle East and Islamic studies graduate students. Things escalated from there, and within a few weeks, Random House withdrew the book, citing "fear of a possible terrorist threat from extremist Muslims" and concern for "the safety and security of the Random House building and employees." The real threat here seems to be from Spellberg, Amanullah and Random House, none of whom seem to respect freedom of speech or the tradition of historical fiction.
As Nomani writes in the WSJ:
"The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world....This saga upsets me as a Muslim -- and as a writer who believes that fiction can bring Islamic history to life in a uniquely captivating and humanizing way."