Since there has been all this controversy over the image of Muhammed recently posted in a Danish paper, I thought I would google for it. So, here's the terrible image:
Well, imagine someone drew a picture of Jesus in a priest's garments having his way with an altar boy. Sure, funny. But destined to stir up a hornet's nest, and also, an inaccurate depiction of the supposed teachings of the religious leader in question.
My understanding is that in Islam (and not just radical sects) it is viewed as a sin to depict the prophet in any way, shape or form. If this depiction is done by a non-Muslim, no matter what the content is, it is viewed as the ultimate insult.
If one allows freedom of expression, it must apply to both sides: the Danes can print whatever they choose, and Muslim communities have the right to protest. However, what has happened has gone far past peaceful assembly and expression, and is no longer an "equal and opposite reaction." (Especially considering the Danish government has apologized as much as they are allowed to without violating freedom of the press, and yet this hasn't sufficed for some of the Muslim world. Not sure why the Norwegian or Swedish embassies were attacked, either, as I'm under the impression these caricatures were limited to the Danish paper.)
So does Islam teach that the correct response to an insult is to attack insults and attempt to provoke war?
If it did then I put it to you that the religion itself would have crossed a meta-ethical line, insofar as peacful coexistence becomes a probability zero future. A religion can be constituted so that its practical options are (a) change and (b) die, no matter what our ideals might be.
But I don't believe Islam is such a religion. Surely it was not intended to be. Leading to the question of why the authorities in question are not doing their part to deal with the situation.
Of course, and on another note, I was always under the impression that Islam, in common with Judaism and Christianity, arguably forbids making pictures at all. Which just makes the situation all the more puzzling - haven't people already dealt with this issue, in their own minds?
Of course, they haven't, because the religious injunction is the excuse, and is conviently remembered today just as it is conveniently forgotten most other days. Also conveniently forgotten is that this image was originally published months ago; it's only in the news this week.
So the real question to be asked is, who is the covert organiser of these protests?
(And the images have now been reprinted in, I think, Norway, France and at least one Muslim country. IIRC the damage to the Swedish embassy was because it was next door, not because it was a target.)
No, it is specifically reproductions of the images of Allah or Muhammed. The Islamic people have accepted the apologies of both Norway and Sweden, who originally posted the image months ago. The problem is the French. After the hoopla began, one of the newspapers there published the cartoon (which is also in and above insulting because it has a bomb instead of a turban). When the muslim community spoke out in (non-violent) protest there (this originally began as a letter campaign, though knowing some people, I'm sure that atleast a couple had threats of violence), the response was to reprint the image once more, this time on the front page. The same day, another newspaper blew it up to near full page and printed underneath "SOLIDARITE!". Since then there are three newspapers in France that have been reprinting the cartoon weekly as a statement of freedom of the press.
And the threats made by Hamas (I think that's how you spell it with english letters), is (obviously) not representative of the actions that all arabs would like to take. They are considered fanatical even by the fanatics.
Alot of times when a muslim says "please don't do that, or you will be killed" they don;t mean that they'll kill you, they just fear that one of their cousins in Hamas will kill you. The uni-brows and deep gutteral voices just make it sound like a threat. ;)
There are many imams who are vehemently against the violent tacks taken by some in the Muslim community. There are probably as many mosques who practice and preach "peaceful coexistence." However, that's not newsworthy.
As far as the actual scripture, I do not know for certain. However, isn't the Bible only against the worship of graven images and not the actual creation of images themselves? If so, almost every church I've ever been in has violated this law. Islam does stem from the Judeo-Christian theology (in fact they refer to Jesus as a major prophet), but that does not make it identical either to Judaism or Christianity, as is all too evident right now.
I think the major issue with Islam is that its most radical fundamentalists who ultimately pervert the religion are the ones gaining the most notoriety and attention abroad. It would be similar to if the only spokesperson for Christianity were Pat Robertson. Islam, in and of itself, doesn't promote or defend this behaviour, much like Christianity in and of itself doesn't ask for extra vacancies on the Supreme Court. Let's not forget that this is far from the first time Islam has been wrongfully co-opted to suit other people's gains and wishes (Nation of Islam - Malcolm X's autobiography has fantastic insight into this).
stuff like that is done all the time, in comics, in stand-up, movies etc. people get upset, and rightly so. they don't burn down buildings, riot and shoot into crowds of people.
if muslims feel that representations of Mohammed as violent are innacurate and offensive, maybe they shouldn't propagate the myth by being violent and offensive.
see for example Canmadian Muslims, who issued statements of sadness and chose to boycott Danish goods. though i feel it is excessive (the boycott) it is a much more appropriate and frankly, useful response.
Well the newspaper article it was published in was called something like 'Danish impressions of Mohammed' which might give it away, but I suspect the medalion on his head probably is a quote from the Quran which identifies him.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 08:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 04:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 03:38 pm (UTC)If one allows freedom of expression, it must apply to both sides: the Danes can print whatever they choose, and Muslim communities have the right to protest. However, what has happened has gone far past peaceful assembly and expression, and is no longer an "equal and opposite reaction." (Especially considering the Danish government has apologized as much as they are allowed to without violating freedom of the press, and yet this hasn't sufficed for some of the Muslim world. Not sure why the Norwegian or Swedish embassies were attacked, either, as I'm under the impression these caricatures were limited to the Danish paper.)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 05:44 pm (UTC)If it did then I put it to you that the religion itself would have crossed a meta-ethical line, insofar as peacful coexistence becomes a probability zero future. A religion can be constituted so that its practical options are (a) change and (b) die, no matter what our ideals might be.
But I don't believe Islam is such a religion. Surely it was not intended to be. Leading to the question of why the authorities in question are not doing their part to deal with the situation.
Of course, and on another note, I was always under the impression that Islam, in common with Judaism and Christianity, arguably forbids making pictures at all. Which just makes the situation all the more puzzling - haven't people already dealt with this issue, in their own minds?
Of course, they haven't, because the religious injunction is the excuse, and is conviently remembered today just as it is conveniently forgotten most other days. Also conveniently forgotten is that this image was originally published months ago; it's only in the news this week.
So the real question to be asked is, who is the covert organiser of these protests?
(And the images have now been reprinted in, I think, Norway, France and at least one Muslim country. IIRC the damage to the Swedish embassy was because it was next door, not because it was a target.)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 06:34 pm (UTC)The Islamic people have accepted the apologies of both Norway and Sweden, who originally posted the image months ago.
The problem is the French. After the hoopla began, one of the newspapers there published the cartoon (which is also in and above insulting because it has a bomb instead of a turban). When the muslim community spoke out in (non-violent) protest there (this originally began as a letter campaign, though knowing some people, I'm sure that atleast a couple had threats of violence), the response was to reprint the image once more, this time on the front page. The same day, another newspaper blew it up to near full page and printed underneath "SOLIDARITE!".
Since then there are three newspapers in France that have been reprinting the cartoon weekly as a statement of freedom of the press.
So, yes, everyone involved is being childish.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 06:37 pm (UTC)Alot of times when a muslim says "please don't do that, or you will be killed" they don;t mean that they'll kill you, they just fear that one of their cousins in Hamas will kill you. The uni-brows and deep gutteral voices just make it sound like a threat.
;)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-06 01:38 am (UTC)As far as the actual scripture, I do not know for certain. However, isn't the Bible only against the worship of graven images and not the actual creation of images themselves? If so, almost every church I've ever been in has violated this law. Islam does stem from the Judeo-Christian theology (in fact they refer to Jesus as a major prophet), but that does not make it identical either to Judaism or Christianity, as is all too evident right now.
I think the major issue with Islam is that its most radical fundamentalists who ultimately pervert the religion are the ones gaining the most notoriety and attention abroad. It would be similar to if the only spokesperson for Christianity were Pat Robertson. Islam, in and of itself, doesn't promote or defend this behaviour, much like Christianity in and of itself doesn't ask for extra vacancies on the Supreme Court. Let's not forget that this is far from the first time Islam has been wrongfully co-opted to suit other people's gains and wishes (Nation of Islam - Malcolm X's autobiography has fantastic insight into this).
no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 04:42 pm (UTC)Sure when something like that is displayed it causes an uproar. But its a VOCAL uproar. No bombs, torches or pitchforks used.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 07:30 pm (UTC)Cheese, maybe.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-06 02:09 pm (UTC)if muslims feel that representations of Mohammed as violent are innacurate and offensive, maybe they shouldn't propagate the myth by being violent and offensive.
see for example Canmadian Muslims, who issued statements of sadness and chose to boycott Danish goods. though i feel it is excessive (the boycott) it is a much more appropriate and frankly, useful response.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-07 01:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 04:17 pm (UTC)