In Need of Reform(ation)

Last night, when I started to write my commentary on the world-wide rioting and arson directed at Denmark due to the publication of the Danish cartoons depicting the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in several ways that reflect the demonstrable terrorist ideology of many of his followers—for example, Muhammad wearing a bomb in his turban—I had little to no knowledge of the hypocrisy contained in the expressions of outrage that have been reported fro the past few days. Here’s how the original commentary began:

With the world-ride unrest that has followed the publication depicting a Danish cartoon image of the acknowledged prophet of the Islamic faith, Muhammad, there has been a blog storm of epic proportions (rightly) condemning the violence against Danish embassies and the call for the extermination of those who created and published the strips. But I wonder what the Danes in question expected when they decided to show the cartoon to the world.

One of the strictest taboos in the Islamic religion is that of idolatry. It’s right up there with pork-eating and alcohol-consumption. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the faith knows this. Another thing that is well-known is that certain members of the West are engaged in a Global War on Terror; terror perpetrated by Islamo-fascists in all too many parts of the world: Bali, Kenya, the Philippines, Madrid, Iraq, London, New York, Washington and the skies over Pennsylvania, USA.

Considering the ideology and mindset of the Islamo-fascists and those Muslims over which they hold sway, the publication of the cartoons was only slightly less incendiary than violating Saudi airspace, over-flying Mecca with USAF B-2s and bombing the Ka'aba with ham hocks.

But then I discovered that images of the prophet Mohamed are nothing new. Countless times, over many centuries, Muhammad has being painted both with reverence and scorn, by Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

From Ottoman religious icons to market stalls in Iran, from the US Supreme Court building to the South Park cartoon, Muhammad has been frequently portrayed in flattering and unflattering lights.

Many painters, including William Blake, Gustave Dore, Auguste Rodin and Salvador Dali, have depicted Mohammed in illustrations of Dante's Inferno, where the Muslim prophet ends up in hell with his entrails hanging out.

Depictions of Mohammed were common during the Ottoman Empire, when the taboo on portraying him was less strong, although often his face was left blank. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts has a 16th-century picture of Mohammed in a mosque, wearing long sleeves to hide his arms and hands.

A 14th-century Persian miniature shows the angel Gabriel speaking to Mohammed, whose face is shown. Medieval Islamic pictures often echoed Christian iconography. The University of California has a 14th-century Turkish painting of the newborn Mohammed in his mother's arms, like pictures of the Christ child.

The taboo is stronger in Sunni Islam than Shia -- and even today in Iran, which is mainly Shia, pictures of Mohammed can be bought illegally in markets.

So what is different now than, say, in 14th century Turkey or in the mid-twentieth century of Salvador Dali’s portrait? Two things: the obvious fact is that information is transmitted infinitely faster than ever before, even though the Danish cartoons in question were published in September of last year. Noting this 'delay in outrage' over the portrayals leads to the other obvious fact: it points to the present-day virulence of Islamo-facism.

(That it has been months since the cartoons first appeared suggests that proponents of the Islamo-fascism were waiting for a strategically-opportune time to inflame the faithful.)

Islam is in the same stage of development that Christianity was in when proponents of the latter religion were burning so-called witches and other “infidels” at the stake. I don’t know whether Islam’s adherents have always been so violent; whether they had been evolving toward a Luther-style Reformation and took a step (or many steps) backward or whether the regression into barbarity has been unswervingly linear. However, Christianity developed beyond that barbaric state, mostly due to its clerics *and* its laypersons actually having access to the Bible, actually reading it and applying its tenets to the church and everyday existence, respectively.

I won't presume to say whether Muslims will be able to search their scriptures and find 'new or deeper truths' which refute the violent reaction to those who criticize their religion in whatever manner, respectful or not. That's up to Islamic scholars and to educated and thoughtful Muslims.

In the meantime, as Muslims threaten and carry out violence to Danes all over the world, as they torch Danish embassies in Damascus and Beirut, I can only echo the sentiments of Cox & Forkum--authors of a Muhammad cartoon of their own--that a few disrespectful Danish cartoons are the least of Islam's worries when it comes to the religion's public relations issues.

And, yes, it's noticeable that all of the signs appear to be written by the same person. Apparently there's at least one jihadi with excellent command of the English language as well as very neat handwriting. I certainly hope that our intelligence services can make some use of that observation.

(Thanks to Pajamas Media, Little Green Footballs and Lucianne)

Of course there are all manner of interesting commentary out there. Here are a few.

Francis W. Poretto lambasts Islam along with the US State Department; the latter for condemning the Danish cartoons as offensive. Well, they are offensive, but not nearly as offensive as...do I have to spell it out?

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred opine on the responsibility--and avoidance of same--of people and of peoples.

Big Pharoah illustrates how obsessed many Muslims are with the Jews. Additionally, found in the comments of another post at Big Pharaoh's place is this, allegedly from a Danish newpaper:

Undskyld, fordi vi gav jer husly og hjælp.
Undskyld, fordi vi giver jer en uddannelse.
Undskyld, fordi vi hjælper jer økonomisk.
Undskyld, fordi I frit kan dyrke jeres tro i vores kristne land.
Undskyld, fordi vi sender hjælp til jeres lande.
Undskyld, fordi vi ikke kræver blodhævn for morderne på vores landsmænd begået af muslimer.
Undskyld, fordi vi ikke render rundt med sprængstoffer på kroppen, når vi føler os krænget.
Undskyld, fordi vi ikke bare gør, som jeres tro siger.

Men en undskyldning for at ytre os i vores eget land og efter vores egne love - den får I aldrig.

Big Pharoah's guest translated it as follows:

Sorry for giving you shelter and help
Sorry for giving you an education
Sorry for helping you financially
Sorry for letting you do your own religion in our [C]hristian country
Sorry for sending help to your countries
Sorry for not demand blood-revenge on the murders on our countrymen by [M]uslims
Sorry for not running around with explosives on ou[r] bodies when we feel pushed aside
Sorry for just not doing what your religion says.

but an apol[og]y for using freedom of speech in our own country with laws that says we can, THAT you'll never get

(I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the translation or of the "apology's" origin, but there you have it.)