IMAGES OF MOHAMMED THROUGHOUT HISTORY, BY MUSLIMS AND "OTHERS"
To my Muslim readers in particular: Before another innocent's blood is spilled, please look at these images that have been created over the years (more by "others," linked in title), and ask yourselves why this recent "cartoon" incident created such worldwide chaos in Muslim nations. In NYC, some Muslims peacefully protested the cartoons, though it got little coverage. Why can't it be like this all around the world? Is the difference in Islam, or the laws of the nation that it's practiced in?
Some Islamic Caliphates allowed images of Mohammed to be made, and even Osama's blown-up residence in Afghanistan had murals of Mohammed on them. This "cartoon story" is the mother of all "red herrings" to justify mindless violence. This isn't even about Islam. It's about evil people, who inflame the masses of Muslims in authoritarian states, and terrorists who seduce spiritually weak individuals.
The modern "Muslim" nations have even less of a leg to stand on when one considers the anti-semitic cartoons routinely published in their state-controlled publications. When a group of repressive nations gather their political will to stifle free speech by private individuals in free countries, all of us must respond.
One expects terrorists to hate Jews and Americans, and the West in general. Why can't majority "Muslim" countries, whether semi-democratic or authoritarian, teach about the age-old time when Islam was tolerant, and embrace that as a new way forward. Without that effort, many of them appear to sympathize with the terrorists. King Abdullah II of Jordan is a notable exception. While condemning the cartoons in a press conference with Pres. Bush, he actually preached tolerance. -from King Abdullah's website:
(Pres. Bush) said that his country believed in the freedom of the press, but that "with this freedom comes responsibility, and responsibility means thinking about others." The two leaders called the violence that has accompanied protests against the cartoons "unacceptable".
"One who wants to protest should be careful... [and] do this peacefully," King Abdullah said.
"When we see protests accompanied by destruction and violence, especially the killing of innocent people, then this is definitely unacceptable." "We should progress one step further in the issue of tolerance so as to accept our common humanity and our shared values," the King added.
The imagery of Mohammed is not going away. The truth is that it's been here throughout history, even in the Islamic world. That's a fact, and all of the protesting in the world cannot change it. When have Muslims protested at the NYC Metropolitan Museum of Art, which displays a Mohammed image?
Hat tip to my bud Magua, for the zombietime link! GREAT SITE! -and a reminder that this "cartoon war" is just a subset of the greater war in our culture, as well as the rest of the world's many cultures. Freedom must win this battle, or we all lose freedom.
Linked at Open Thoughts of a Universal Mind at STOP The ACLU.
Comments
I can only address the continued social injustice shown by scornful conspiracy theorists while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear if Mr. Leavitt's dotty, clueless club is decimated down to those whose inborn lack of character permits them to betray anyone and everyone for the well-known thirty pieces of silver. Mr. Leavitt once tried to open the gates of Hell. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you truly don't understand how Mr. Leavitt operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that many people who follow his hariolations have come to the erroneous conclusion that the Universe belongs to him by right. The stark truth of the matter is that I have frequently criticized Mr. Leavitt's unspoken plan to discredit legitimate voices in the absenteeism debate. He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of immoralism, vandalism, child molestation, and halitosis. Mr. Leavitt hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that in a tacit concession of defeat, Mr. Leavitt is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his adversarial practices have failed at. It's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to oppose Mr. Leavitt and all he stands for. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. I, for one, have begged his encomiasts to step forth and reach out for things with permanence, things beyond wealth and comfort and pleasure, things that have real meaning. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how Mr. Leavitt might retaliate? It would take days to give the complete answer to that question but the gist of it is that I find that some of Mr. Leavitt's choices of words in his policies would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "blinkered" for "blepharosphincterectomy" and "shiftless" for "nondenominationalism."
Mr. Leavitt hates you -- yes, you, because you, like me, want to create a world in which charlatanism, radicalism, and Dadaism are all but forgotten. Should we be concerned that he wants to impugn the patriotism of his opponents? I'll answer that question for you: Yes, we should doubtlessly be concerned, because we must teach soulless scapegraces about tolerance. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences. Efforts to make bigotry respectable are not vestiges of a former era. They are the beginnings of a phenomenon which, if permitted to expand unchecked, will impede the free flow of information. If Mr. Leavitt had done his homework, he'd know that he is too prurient to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that it's his belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to monopolize the press. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such an abhorrent idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that Mr. Leavitt periodically puts up a facade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. Given that there must be some ascertainable mental block that makes Mr. Leavitt so incomprehensible, isn't it fairly obvious that our situation is snowballing? It has long been obvious to attentive observers that the hysteria and witch-hunts fueled by his objectives will overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of his own base nature eventually. But did you know that Mr. Leavitt must be suffering from some severe mental strabismus to think that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is? He doesn't want you to know that because there are three fairly obvious problems with his perceptions, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. First, he is a bit teched. Second, I'm simply trying to explain his gin-swilling tendencies as well as his anal-retentive tendencies as phases of a larger, unified cycle. And third, we can divide his theatrics into three categories: rotten, larcenous, and insolent.
A few days ago, Mr. Leavitt actually admitted that he wants to compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. Can you believe that? Perhaps Mr. Leavitt forgot to take his antipsychotics that day. An additional clue is that if he doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that he should do some research next time before printing half-truths and misinformation. What I mean is that we ought to criticize Mr. Leavitt's offhand remarks publically for their formalistic categories, their spurious claims of neutrality, and their blindness to the abuse of private power. That'll make Mr. Leavitt think once -- I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter -- before trying to replace our timeless traditions with his drugged-out ones. Am I angry? You bet. He really struck a nerve with me when he said that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. That lie is a painful reminder that if Mr. Leavitt continues to show us a gross miscarriage of common judgment, I will unquestionably be obliged to do something about him. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations.
Most people don't realize this, but Mr. Leavitt has, in fact, presented evidence in support of his claim that all literature which opposes phallocentrism was forged by unpleasant humanity-haters. Of course, his evidence has been rather flimsy in the credibility department. It's generally a lot easier to find evidence that today, we might have let Mr. Leavitt leach integrity and honor from our souls. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will mention a bit about morally crippled, destructive yutzes such as Mr. Leavitt. The only way out of Mr. Chris Leavitt's rat maze is to deal with the relevant facts. It's that simple.
--HEY!!! YOU'RE THE MILLION DOLLAR MOONBAT!
Please confirm this by proving my calculations wrong.
At least I know you are still of good cheer and generosity. Your demure is never lacking, and you always such a joy. :)
Peace is possible if we just respect and work together. Even though we all have differences we can get peace if we respect each other.
I was reading your comments on Iran, yes there might be some problems but the West should not poke their nose in all countries. People don’t like it.
The West should mind its own business and live in peace together.