« HinesLand happenings, 2/2/06 | Main | Muslims have been depicting Mohammed for centuries »

February 03, 2006


What was the point of making these pictures of our beloved prophet Muhammad peace be upon him?

In Islam we dont make pictures of any other prophets. We respect all prophets, Jesus, Moses, Abraham. In our religion, even if you made pictures of these prophets, it would be considered a big sin.

We respect all religions, yet why dont the people who drawed what they did respect ours?

Moreover, why not write about our prophet peace be upon him from true sources? if you really learn about this Prophet, you will see what a mercy he was to mankind.

I did a big press round-up of this issue yesterday, if you're interested in looking at it/commenting on it--I'd be interested to know what you thought...

It is a sticky topic, but I think basically that what these European newspapers did amounts to provocation or to, at minimum, irresponsible (possibly ethnocentric/chauvinist) journalism, but they shouldn't be censored. On the other hand, the issue of racism in the West and in Europe is a tricky one, because of the conglomeration of facts that amount to a somewhat racist (anti-Arab/anti-black/pro-white/French/Danish/etc.) or at least chauvinist (see above parentheses) stance on these issues. But violent protests, in my opinion, and this kind of fear of violence, is also really problematic.

Ridiculing someone else's religious beliefs always leads to protests. The problem with the Muslim response-- in my mind-- and why I think our government should have said nothing about it-- was the complete overreaction as to what some Muslims now say they want to do-- kill the cartoonists (who are btw I guess in hiding now), cut off their heads or hands, maybe bomb some innocent people to express their anger. Civilized people ignore, write articles or letters, protest, boycott, avoid the shows, maybe even picket. They don't kill someone (often innocent) because they feel they were being disrespected.

Remember Salman Rushdie and what he went through for writing a book that Khomeni felt was blasphemous. If someone wants their religion to be respected by others, the good way is not bombing someone innocent or threatening mayhem for disagreeing.

Our government should have kept their mouths shut on this one as putting yourself on the side of extremists never seems wise. What I wonder is why this suddenly exploded now-- after all these months. Is there something else somebody wants to distract attention from?

To "be":

The generalization that Islam respects other religions is preposterous. Islam is rife with the vilest sort of anti-Semitism (awkward word, I know) and Islam in recent times has been characterized by gross intolerance and extreme violence toward non-believers.

While I'm generally against gratuitous offense to people's religious sensibilities, Islam has made a very bad name for itself, and countless atrocities have been committed specifically in the name of its prophet. The name of the prophet has thus been made shameful, but the only time we hear the likes of "be" chime in is to complain about the insults of non-believers. If he and his like showed the slightest embarrassment about the enormous amount of violence, usually committed in the most atrocious and cowardly way, then we might care a little more about the hurt feelings of him and his co-religionists about a few drawings. Let's see if he can manage a full-throated denunciation of Muslim atrocities around the world.

Everybody ought to have heard the old expression by now: "Islam has bloody borders." Look around the world and you'll see that it's so. Why is that? What has the "prophet" wrought upon the world? "What a mercy," indeed.

I won't hold my breath waiting for any serious self-reflection from "be" and other followers of the religion of the sword.

Media Fanatic, you were too humble and left the URL to your impressive blog hidden under your name. Here it is:

I enjoyed your global media review of reaction to the Muhammad cartoons. Very thorough and thoughtful. You're providing a useful service.

I've been reading more about this issue and continue to feel that when religion is fused with politics (or terrorism), it loses any claim to being uncriticized. Assuming it had any claim to begin with.

Islam may indeed be a religion of peace. I don't know. I've read, in translation, all three volumes of Rumi's Masnavi. I love Rumi. This Sufi says that the "greater holy war" is against our own lower ignorant self. That rings true to me. But most Muslims don't have that mystic understanding of their faith.

Here are some links to sites talking about the cartoon controversy that I ran across today:


The best thing I can find to say about Media Fanatic is that his ignorance doesn't appear to be entirely invincible. But it's a close thing. The category of "racism" (interchangeable with chauvinism, or what have you) allows his brain to resist actually evaluating criticisms against a reality to which they may or may not correspond. It's enough that white First-Worlders should say something against some racial or cultural "other" to know that such criticisms should be dismissed. Happily (and this is the crack in the otherwise invincible ignorance) he nevertheless finds violent protests "really problematic."

Brian shows a similarly touching resistance to empirical evidence. "Islam may indeed be a religion of peace," he muses; so what does he do to test the thesis? He reads a book written in the 13th century!

Perhaps I'm being harsh. I could agree if what Brian means is, "a peaceful version of Islam may be possible." And no doubt it could be and in many cases is. However, if a significant part of Islam is peaceful, it's not taking too much trouble to denounce the violent part and separate the sheep from the goats. Part of the problem is that there are just so many goats. As I stated before, "Islam has bloody borders"; Muslim moderates there may be, but there are Muslim extremists making themselves known through their violence and mischief all over the world. If you haven't noticed it yet, it's about time you started. The Middle East is rife with violent extremism, of course, but it's spreach to the far corners of the earth, to Indonesia, Kashmir, Nigera, Sudan, Turkey and Afghanistan. And of course Muslims acting in the name of the prophet have committed atrocities in the U.S., Russia, Spain, Britain, Holland and France. That's the short list.

How could anyone in their right mind call this a "religion of peace"? It reminds me of calling the fattest person you know "Tiny."

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.