Islamic depictions of Mohammed -- been going for centuries!

[Gilliver's Travels]

See this link for a vast collection of images of Muhamed, created over the centuries, and seemingly unnoticed by today's bunch of rabble-rousing politicians who call themselves mullahs.

Pictures of the prophet -- produced by Muslims -- are nothing new. The current storm over the cartoons is totally synthetic. As is so often the case, holy books and ancient rulings get deliberately misinterpreted to serve political ends. The relatively recent fashion for Hijab enforcement is another example of religious tradition-manufacturing on the hoof.

In Britain, we have a long tradition of poking fun at religion. In a free society, believers in irrational superstition should be able to take rational criticism on the chin. Whether their supernatural preference is for Jesus, Buddha, Hans Christian Andersen, or the Brothers Grimm, it just doesn't stack up.

Unlike race, religion is only an option. You are allowed to think for yourself and escape. Which is why perhaps the most perplexing and embarrassing examples of religious delusion are Wusslims - those white, hijab-clad converts from tree hugging sometimes to be found in your local Body Shop.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

This has dropped to NSC's second page like a stone - unlike my "How long to make the second page?" post which is still stuck on page 1 after 9 bloody days!!!!

Who says we're dumbing down?

Anyway, don't forget to check out those delightful images of The Prophet Mohammed [PBUH] produced by Muslims - HERE!

 

[Bry Nylon]

don't forget to check out those delightful images of The Prophet Mohammed [PBUH] produced by Muslims - HERE!

I would do, but I'm washing my hair

 

[Race]

puts me off my bacon sandwiches

 

[Eggmundo]

It wouldn't be so bad if the cartoons were actually funny!

 

[Curious Orange]

Right, so Mohammed has been depicted many, many, times down the years, and nobody has felt a need to burn Scandanavian Embassys before.

What you have to consider, however, is the context in which most of those illustrations exist - as depictions of moments in Mohammed's life - which is unlikely to overly piss off anyone.

What has annoyed people is that a couple of the Danish cartoons depicted Mohammed as being a violent person, and I can understand the perceived insult, if not the over-reaction. Most of the rest of the Danish cartoons seemed otherwise harmless.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Why were people so SHIT at drawing in the old days?

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

What has annoyed people is that a couple of the Danish cartoons depicted Mohammed as being a violent person, and I can understand the perceived insult, if not the over-reaction...

That infamous bomb-turban cartoon is almost certainly portraying Mohammed (surely correctly) as misguided inspiration for the idiot suicide bomber, rather than literally as a terrorist himself.

I actually think the cleverest cartoon is that 'veiled women' one, where the cutout in the women's veil becomes a blindfold for the man's eyes. Surely a feminist point is being made here, about a horribly misogynist culture: women wouldn't need to cover up if instead all men had to wear blindfolds.

 

[Bwian]

Why were people so SHIT at drawing in the old days?

And in this day and age of digicams, phones with 2Mp cameras and CCTV everywhere no prophets come calling.

Weird that....

 

[The Great Cornholio]

See this link for a vast collection of images of Muhamed, created over the centuries, and seemingly unnoticed by today's bunch of rabble-rousing politicians who call themselves mullahs.

Pictures of the prophet -- produced by Muslims -- are nothing new. The current storm over the cartoons is totally synthetic. As is so often the case, holy books and ancient rulings get deliberately misinterpreted to serve political ends. The relatively recent fashion for Hijab enforcement is another example of religious tradition-manufacturing on the hoof.

In Britain, we have a long tradition of poking fun at religion. In a free society, believers in irrational superstition should be able to take rational criticism on the chin. Whether their supernatural preference is for Jesus, Buddha, Hans Christian Andersen, or the Brothers Grimm, it just doesn't stack up.

Unlike race, religion is only an option. You are allowed to think for yourself and escape. Which is why perhaps the most perplexing and embarrassing examples of religious delusion are Wusslims - those white, hijab-clad converts from tree hugging sometimes to be found in your local Body Shop.

Racism, slavery, stonings etc have all been going on for centuries. It doesn't make them right. All parties - Western "civilised" countries, Jews, Muslims - are all partly to blame for current tensions. Simplistic, misguided and basically wrong gibberings about free speech are ludicrous. You must live in a different country to me if you have free speech. A country without laws about libel, slander, racism etc.

Middle Eastern countries have been beheading people for centuries. Yet most people claim the right to jump up and down when it happens to a Westerner. Because they have done it for years doesn't mean it is acceptable.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

Right, so Mohammed has been depicted many, many, times down the years, and nobody has felt a need to burn Scandanavian Embassys before.

What you have to consider, however, is the context in which most of those illustrations exist - as depictions of moments in Mohammed's life - which is unlikely to overly piss off anyone.

What has annoyed people is that a couple of the Danish cartoons depicted Mohammed as being a violent person, and I can understand the perceived insult, if not the over-reaction. Most of the rest of the Danish cartoons seemed otherwise harmless.

Why can't you understand the over-reaction. That is the nature of some of these groups of extremists. They are looking for the slightest provocation to justify their sick rantings. The newspapers in question were well aware of this when they took the decision to publish - and I can understand the sentiment from oderate Muslims that it is seen as provocation. Regardless of the freedom of speech argument, they knew it would cause protests from extremists and did it anyway. You have to ask yourself why. Just because we all know that the extremists are misguided, volatile thugs with little right to walk the earth, doesn't justify poking them with sticks and giving them the sucker they are looking for.

Like it or not, these extremists are growing in number because of the perceived provocation of acts such as this. Although they may seem trivial acts to us, they are increasing the amount of people who will be willing to commit "outrages". Regardless of whether this is justified or not, it is the outcome.