How Cartoons Anger Muslims More than Boka Haram Kidnappings

Last Updated on August 23, 2021 by Shaun Snapp

Executive Summary

  • Muslims lie about what actually angers them.
  • Muslims are anti-west and act as primitive tribalists, only being angered by minor insults to Islam.


There is a myth that most Muslims are moderate, and there is only a small percentage of global Muslims who are extremists. In this article, we cover how the reactions of Muslims tell us very clearly how Muslims really feel about issues and how most Muslims fall into the category of extremism.

See our references for this article and related articles at this link.

How Do Muslims React to A Teacher Being Beheaded for Showing Muhammed Cartoons

The majority of Muslims support people being beheaded for the mildest freedom of speech, such as showing cartoons critical of Mohammed. 

A Chechen living in France, Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov, beheaded a French teacher who showed Mohammed’s cartoons to students. Anzorov was called the “Lion of Islam” and given a hero’s welcome to Chechnia for performing this act. As the video points out, parents and students and many social media posters promoted Anzorov to take revenge against this teacher. This is explained in the following quotation.

Ten people have been charged with assisting the killer, including an imam, a parent of a student, and two students at Paty’s school. – Wikipedia

Yet the coverage by Western establishment media is that the event was only due to a single Muslim extremist, leaving out the public outcry against the cartoons being shown, the information provided to the Muslim murderer by other Muslims, and the calls for revenge by both parents of the students and the larger Muslim community.

And this is not just everyday Muslims that supported the beheading. Several leaders from Islamic countries stated that Anzorov had been provoked Muslims. They state they oppose the beheadings, but they do not state that French citizens should have the right to show Islamic cartoons. It appears much more likely that they do not oppose the beheadings but only say they oppose it out of political correctness. This conclusion can be naturally arrived at by observing how they refuse to support the secular freedom of speech laws in France. And there are many countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran where the penalty for apostasy is death.

And why is Macron being vilified in Muslim countries? Because he stated after the beheadings that Islam was in crisis. Macron demands the French freedom of speech laws be respected, and Muslims refuse to respect these laws. Apparently, Muslims who begged to be allowed into the country did not realize they would have to respect French laws and consider Islamic Law superior to French laws. Muslims disagree with the freedom of speech laws in every country to which they immigrate. 

Notice that what angers Muslims is not the beheading, but the fact that Macron stated that he would protect secular freedom of speech. The only anger the Muslims seem to feel is concerning what Macron said about freedom of speech. In the video above, one of the Muslims, Sardar Masood Khan – President of Pakistan Administered Kashmir, states the following.

This type of denunciation is being not only in the Muslim countries but in non-Muslim countries, and the purpose is to convey a message to President Macron, but also to the Western leaders that this practice of Islamaphobia or incitement to hatred will not be acceptable to the Muslim world. This is against the United Nation’s Charter, international law, and many treaties and conventions that are there to protect the rights of followers of all faiths including Islam, and therefore this systematic practice cannot be allowed. This is a clear message coming from the Muslim world.  Let me also tell you that in France and in many Western countries there are laws against denying Holocaust or making statements in regards to anti-semitism and so on, and you can’t propagate Naziism or Facism. So similarly, in the same vein, you cannot insult The Prophet of Islam. You can’t insult the most precious and the most revered icon in the Muslim world.

This is a direct contradiction of freedom of speech. Therefore, on wonders, what does Khan believe is an appropriate punishment for insulting The Prophet? And Khan is correct that several countries have made it illegal to say certain negative things about Islam or Mohammed. One example is Austria, where it is illegal to call Mohammed a pedophile (which he was). Something else that Khan does not appear to realize is that France is not a Muslim country. Therefore he appears to want Islamic Law applied to France.

As for Khan’s comment on the UN Charter, here is what I was able to find regarding religion.

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

Does that sound like a restriction on freedom of speech versus religion? No, it does not. Furthermore, all Muslim countries restrict the rights of non-Muslims. Therefore, it is challenging for Muslims to about some type of universal deference that all countries must show religion.

Nabila Ramdani states that..

The reason why Muslims are calling for a boycott…is that Macron has incorporated cartoons mocking Islam into its domestic policies. And up until now, the Charlie Hebdo images portraying The Prophet Mohammed as a thoroughly pathetic figure who is there to be mocked along with all followers of Islam had been considered marginal and anti-establishment, but Macron has changed all of that. He promised that he would not renounce the character and defended them as part of French culture. In doing so he has made them mainstream and indeed normalized them in his bid to put Muslims in their place. And if we can look beyond terrorist attacks, and I appreciate that it is very hard in times like these but this is the first-ever French administration to place propaganda aimed at humiliating Muslims and indeed placing them outside of civilized society in its policies. And there I say the current cartoon on the front page of Charlie Hebdo is not a playful satire of President Erdogan, it’s a vile depiction of Muslim women as sexual tools for pervert Muslim men and at the same time it once again attacks The Prophet Mohammed in the most unspeakable language.

This quotation is ridiculous and is highly deceptive. First, Macron is not making the cartoons as part of “its domestic policy.” He is supporting freedom of speech. He cannot renounce them. He did not draw them, and France’s freedom of speech laws protects them. If the head of state were to denounce cartoons, soon the questions would arise as to why laws are not passed to restrict freedom of speech in France. The guilt-tripping and exaggeration on the part of these Muslim speakers are off the charts. Notice also that Nabila Ramdani wants the actual crime, the beheading of a French teacher, to be “put to the side,” while apparently the true crime, these cartoons, is placed to the center. Khan later calls Macron an extremist. The evidence of his extremism? Macron is defending French freedom of speech laws. Curiously, Khan does not refer to the Chechen as an extremist. Instead, he refers to Macron as the extremist.

Ramdani later states the following:

If anything, Mr Macron actually provoked the whole thing. He acted in a manner that was rushed and un-statesmanlike following the vile murder of a Samuel Paty, the teacher beheaded by a Russian born terrorist.

Curiously, Ramadani chooses this description. The terrorist was Chechen, not Russian. But secondly, what was his motivation to kill Samuel Paty? What does Islam say about the punishment of those that depict The Prophet, Mohammed?

This Islamic scholar states that there is no physical punishment for blasphemy in Islam and claims that punishment comes from God in the present and the afterlife.  

This is reinforced in the following quotation.

The Quran curses those who commit blasphemy and promises blasphemers humiliation in the Hereafter. However, whether any Quranic verses prescribe worldly punishments is debated: some Muslims believe that no worldly punishment is prescribed while others disagree. The interpretation of hadiths, which are another source of Sharia, is similarly debated. Some have interpreted hadith as prescribing punishments for blasphemy, which may include death, while others argue that the death penalty applies only to cases where perpetrator commits treasonous crimes, especially during times of war. In the modern Muslim world, the laws pertaining to blasphemy vary by country, and some countries prescribe punishments consisting of fines, imprisonment, flogging, hanging, or beheading. Blasphemy laws were rarely enforced in pre-modern Islamic societies. In the modern era some states and radical groups have used charges of blasphemy in an effort to burnish their religious credentials and gain popular support at the expense of liberal Muslim intellectuals and religious minorities. – Wikipedia

So while there is a great deal of disagreement about the punishment for blasphemy, it is clear that the Chechen subscribed to the belief that blasphemers should be murdered and decapitated. It is curious that Ramdani refers to the Chechen as Russian and does not refer to him as Muslim. What does Ramdani think this entire issue is about. What promoted the Chechen to behead the teacher, the fact that Samual Paty insulted Russia or insulted Islam?

The following describes an official position taken by a major Islamic institution on the Samual Paty murder.

A thousand-year-old institution, Egypt’s al-Azhar University is widely considered as Sunni Islam’s most prestigious center to issue fatwas. The institution’s grand Imam, Sheikh Ahmad al-Tayeb, has condemned the beheading of Samuel Paty, the French teacher, and Thursday’s knife attack that killed three people in Nice as “heinous terrorist attacks” that contradict Islam.  – VOA News

Is that true? Because there appear to be different schools of thought, as it seems that many if not most Muslims support the murder or physical punishment of blasphemers. al-Azhar University continues.

At the same time, al-Tayeb has said that using free speech as a justification to insult religions was an “invitation to hatred.” – VOA News

This is inconsistent. One cannot say that the murder was counter to Islam, then state that freedom of speech can be used to insult religions. If the freedom of speech can’t be used, then what can? This is the tightrope that Islam continually tries to walk — that they denounce a murder, but then claimed the murder was provoked and then stated that freedom of speech does not apply to Islam. Al Azhar University continues.

In a January 2018 response to a follower’s question on Facebook, al-Azhar University provided what appeared to be an inconclusive ruling on whether drawing pictures of humans was allowed in Islam.

In a video explanation, the center noted a disagreement among Muslim jurists throughout history on depicting living beings, saying that some credible scholars have imposed an absolute ban on it, viewing the art as usurping God’s power.

“When people saw images or statues in the 7th century, they could have been tempted to worship them,” Mustafa Akyol, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute focusing on Islam and modernity, told VOA. “Today, the idea probably doesn’t occur to anyone.” – VOA News

If al-Azhar University cannot determine if depicting Mohammed is to be punished, why is it fighting against freedom of speech laws?

However, it is not only depicting Mohammed, which is not allowed but all of Egypt’s sculptures, as explained in the following quotation.

More than 1,300 years after the Muslim conquest swept through Egypt, one of the country’s highest religious authorities has declared that its ancient sculptures are forbidden by Islam.

In his fatwa – or religious ruling – issued earlier this month, Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa quoted a saying of the prophet Muhammad that sculptors will be among those receiving the harshest punishment on Judgment Day.

Artists and intellectuals here say the edict, whose ban on producing and displaying sculptures overturns a century-old fatwa, runs counter to Islam. They also worry that extremists may use the ruling as a pretense for destroying Egypt’s ancient relics, which form a pillar of the country’s multibillion-dollar tourist industry.

The influential Sheikh Youssef Al Qaradawi agreed that “Islam prohibits statues and three-dimensional figures of living creatures” and concluded that “the statues of ancient Egyptians are prohibited.”

Artists say the ruling stems from a literal reading of religious texts, and worry that it may lead zealots to deface Egyptian’s national monuments – much like the followers of the Taliban, who in 2001 infamously dynamited to dust two gigantic statues of the Buddha dating back to the 3rd and 5th centuries AD.

Ayman Semary, a sculptor and art professor, questions why Islamic leaders are only now banning such relics.

“I laughed when I read the paper” and saw the news of the fatwa, says Mr. Semary. “When Islam came to Egypt, [the Muslim invaders] never damaged any Pharaonic statues. How can Ali Gomaa now say that statues are forbidden?” – Christian Science Monitor

However, while this greatly enlarges what is banned, Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa is not calling for punishment now, but punishment on Judgement Day.

How the rules about depicting Mohammed changed over time.

Historians say depictions of Islam’s leader have not always been frowned upon, pointing to paintings of him during the 13-16th century by artists from modern-day Turkey and Iran.

One of the most prominent such portraits is on display at the New York-based Metropolitan Museum of Art. It is a 16th-century painting showing Prophet Muhammad on the back of a four-legged animal with the face of a human, a central Islamic belief known as “the heavenly journey of the Prophet.” – VOA News

Here is the painting of The Prophet Mohammed from the 13th century, back when it was common to show his likeness. Should I also be beheaded for showing this image that Muslims agreed to be depicted at that time? Apparently no. But if I altered this image to have Muhammed riding something weirder than he is already riding (how I would do this would be a challenge), then apparently that is a beheadable offense, at least to many Muslims. 

However, the bigger problem is that the cartoons showed Mohammed in a negative light, as explained in the following quotation.

Qaradaghi said Muslims viewed the depictions of Prophet Muhammad in the caricatures by French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo as blasphemous because they were offensive not merely because they showed Islam’s holiest man.

“In Islam, things are judged based on their outcome,” he said. “For example, if you do something that will have a positive outcome, then you can do it. If, on the other hand, it’s something that is offensive and insulting to someone, even if it’s a proper thing to do, it would still be considered an improper thing to do.” – VOA News

Ramdani also states that the cartoons are racist. First, even if they are racist, that is also protected under freedom of speech laws. However, there is also no evidence that the cartoons were racist. This is just more deception on the part of Ramadani, who will apparently say anything to try to pain Macron’s behavior as unacceptable while distancing Muslims from the beheading or instigating the beheading by not even calling the Anzorov a Muslim.

She also says..

Such malicious characters have nothing to do with freedom of speech, and would not be allowed in the countries such as Britain or Germany for example.

This is curious because it has everything to do with freedom of speech. Nabila Ramdani claims that the cartoons would not be allowed in Britain or Germany. However, does Nabila Ramdani realize that France is not Britain or Germany? Does she realize that each country sets its own laws? This is also a common claim by those that oppose freedom of speech and state that the topic at hand has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Something else curious is that Muslims cannot wait to immigrate from Muslim countries to non-Muslim countries.

Why is that?

How Muslims Want Islamic Law Applied in Non-Muslim Countries

It is very easy to find countries to live in that legally stop all criticism of Islam. Yet, Muslims, when given the choice, choose to live in primarily white non-Muslim countries. However, once they leave, they go about trying to convert each country into Islamic societies. Muslims seem to not respect countries’ laws, claiming Islamic Law applies to countries that are not Islamic. And France is having its freedom of speech restricted in the most significant way as France is roughly 40% Muslim. Muslims have high birth rates. France has a clear potential to lose its freedom of speech as France becomes more Muslim every year. 

Now let us contrast this outcry for the minor infraction of showing some cartoons, to the activities of Boka Haram.

Why Muslims Are Fine with Boka Haram’s Activities

This video illustrates that when Muslims commit crimes in the service of Islam, the Islamic community is virtually silent, and appears to desire that the story go away so as not to cause “Islamaphobia.” Islamaphobia, not the activities of Boka Haram are supposed to be the main focus of the story. 


Muslims will call for the murder of non-Muslims for showing cartoons of Mohammed, but will not show much concern for things like Boka Haram or ISIS. ISIS had a rape manual published which showed how in line with mainstream Islamic teaching that one can rape non-Muslims. Both Boka Haram and ISIS engaged in widescale rape of female prisoners. However, Muslims had little to say about these topics.

All of this shows what Muslims really care about, and it is only slights against Islam. It is certainly not holding Muslims accountable for atrocious behavior. As this is the case, how can it be asserted that the majority of Muslims are “moderate?”