Why aren't artists spending more time attacking Muslims? This is the question recently asked by Peter Whittle, the right wing commentator for the New Culture Forum - a website designed to challenge the "dogma and relativism" of the left wing arts establishment.
Well, OK, that is not exactly what he asked. Rather, he begins by posing the seemingly reasonable question of why so many playwrights and filmmakers are self-censoring when it comes to the emergence of radical Islam - which, according to him is "without question, the most important issue facing us".
Now, important as Islamic fundamentalism is, I'm not sure whether this really is the most important issue facing us (climate change, or the widening chasm between rich and poor, anyone?). But the real problems with his argument begin with his ignorance of recent things that actually have explicitly tackled the issues surrounding Islam and Islamic fundamentalism.
From a theatrical point of view, we've had Robin Soans' Talking to Terrorists, and at this year's Edinburgh Fringe festival Jihad the Musical. Last year, I helped develop a play at the Soho Theatre called On Religion which, told of how an atheist mother tried to come to terms with the death of her son (a priest) in a suicide bombing in London.
And what might well be the most significant contribution from within the theatre world to this debate will occur next year, when the extraordinary dance company DV8 launch their new (as yet untitled) show which promises to tackle the appalling intolerance and prejudice that gay people face both in the Islamic world and in many other religious contexts.
Looking beyond the theatre, we find the young visual artist Sarah Maple who has made a humorous stab at the subject; we saw Paul Greengrass' remarkable film United 93 and Paul Berg's more recent (though nowhere near as good) movie The Kingdom; and no doubt it won't be long before Little Mosque on the Prairie reaches our TV screens.
Yet the real problem with Whittle's argument is that, like Martin Amis (another artist he conveniently ignores) he is far too quick to elide the radical form of Islam with the wider religious tradition. He jumps with speed but not subtlety from speaking specifically of Islamism to arguing that artists need to be "critical of Islam" as a whole.
He is right that it is extremely depressing that some writers are feeling the need to change what they write for fear of reprisals from a small minority of well motivated, heavily armed, women-hating, theo-geeks. (Though if the police were more willing to protect the right of people to express themselves this might not be so much of a problem.)
But the reason why more artists don't 'criticise Islam' in the way that Whittle implores is that to do so would mean reducing a hugely complex and often misunderstood religious and cultural tradition to such a simplistic, bigoted picture that it would, most likely, just result in bad art.
The principle of free speech is a vital one and whilst it allows writers to be as abusive and ham-fisted as they like in their approach to Islam, it does not oblige them to be so. Perhaps at least some of what Whittle sees as being cowardly self-censorship by the cultural establishment can actually be put down to sound artistic judgment.
